8.10. For just as doctors have to do more than treat the ailments which meet the eye, and need also to discover those which he hid, since their patients often conceal the truth, so the advocate must look out for more points than his client discloses to him. After he considers that he has given a sufficiently patient hearing to the latter's statements, he must assume another character and adopt the rôle of his opponent, urging every conceivable objection that a discussion of the kind which we are considering may permit.
8.10. ut medicis non apparentia modo vitia curanda sunt sed etiam invenienda quae latent, saepe ipsis ea, qui sanandi sunt, occulentibus, ita advocatus plura quam ostenduntur aspiciat. cum satis in audiendo patientiae impenderit, in aliam rursus ei personam transeundum est, agendusque adversarius, proponendum quidquid omnino excogitari contra potest, quidquid recipit in eiusmodi disceptatione natura. quam infestissime ac premendus.
8.11. The client must be subjected to a hosthe cross-examination and given no peace: for by enquiring into everything, we shall sometimes come upon the truth where we least expect it. In fact, the advocate who is most successful in getting up his case is he who is incredulous. For the client promises everything: the people, he says, will bear witness to the truth of what he says, he can produce documentary evidence at a moment's notice and there are some points which he says his opponent will not deny.
8.11. dum omnia quaerimus, aliquando ad verum, ubi minime exspectavimus, pervenimus. summa optimus est in discendo patronus incredulus. enim litigator omnia, testem populum, paratissimas consignationes, ipsum denique adversarium quaedam non negaturum.
8.12. It is therefore necessary to look into every document connected with the case, and where the mere sight of them is not sufficient, they must be read through. For very frequently they are either not at all what the client alleged them to be, or contain less, or are mixed up with elements that may damage our case, or prove more than is required and are likely to detract from their credibility just because they are so extravagant.
8.12. opus est intueri omne litis instrumentum; quod videre non est satis, perlegendum erit. frequentissime aut non sunt omnino, quae promittebantur, aut minus continent aut cum alio aliquo nocituro permixta sunt aut nimia sunt et fidem hoc ipso detractura quod non habent modum.
8.13. Further, it will often be found that the thread is broken or the seal tampered with or the signatures unsupported by witnesses. And unless you discover such facts at home, they will take you by surprise in court and trip you up, doing you more harm by forcing you to abandon them than they would have done had they never been promised you. There are also a number of points which the client regards as irrelevant to his case, which the advocate will be able to elicit, provided he go carefully through all the “dwelling places” of argument which I have already described.
8.13. linum ruptum aut turbatam ceram aut sine agnitore signa frequenter invenies; quae, nisi domi excusseris, in foro inopinata decipient, plusque nocebunt destituta quam non promissa nocuissent. etiam, quae litigator nihil ad causam pertinere crediderit, patronus eruet, modo per omnes, quos tradidimus, argumentorum locos eat.
8.14. Now though, for reasons already mentioned, it is most undesirable that he should hunt for and try every single one of those, while actually engaged in pleading his case, it is most necessary in the preliminary study of the case to leave no stone unturned to discover the character of the persons involved, the circumstances of time and place, the customs and documents concerned, and the rest, from which we may not merely deduce the proofs known as artificial, but may also discover which witnesses are most to be feared and the best method of refuting them. For it makes a great difference whether it be envy, hatred or contempt that forms the chief obstacle to the success of the defence, since of these obstacles the first tells most against superiors, the second against equals, and the third against those of low degree.
8.14. ut circumspectare in agendo et attentare singulos minime convenit, propter quas diximus causas, ita in discendo rimari necessarium est, quae personae, quae tempora et loca, instituta, instrumenta, cetera, ex quibus non tantum illud, quod est artificiale probationis genus, colligi possit, sed qui metuendi testes, quomodo sint refellendi. plurimum refert, invidia reus an odio an contemptu laboret, quorum fere pars prima superiores, proxima pares, tertia humiliores premit.
8.15. Having thus given a thorough examination to the case and clearly envisaged all those points which will tell for or against his client, the orator must then place himself in the position of a third person, namely, the judge, and imagine that the case is being pleaded before himself, and assume that the point which would have carried most weight with himself, had he been trying the case, is likely to have the greatest influence with the actual judge. Thus he will rarely be deceived as to the result of the trial, or, if he is, it will be the fault of the judge.
8.15. causam perscrutatus, propositis ante oculos omnibus quae prosint noceantve, tertiam deinceps personam induat iudicis, fingatque apud se agi causam, et, quod ipsum movisset de eadem re pronuntiaturum, id potentissimum, apud quemcunque agetur, existimet. eum raro fallet eventus, aut culpa iudicis erit.
9.1. As regards the points to be observed in the actual pleading, I have dealt with these in every portion of this work, but there still remain a few on which I must touch as being specially appropriate to the present place, since they are concerned not so much with the art of speaking as with the duties of the advocate. Above all it is important that he should never, like so many, be led by a desire to win applause to neglect the interest of the actual case.
9.1. sint in agendo servanda, toto fere opere exsecuti sumus; pauca tamen propria huius loci, quae non tam dicendi arte quam officiis agentis continentur, attingam. omnia ne, quod plerisque accidit, ab utilitate eum causae praesentis cupido laudis abducat.
9.2. It is not always the duty of generals in the field to lead their armies through flat and smiling country: it will often be necessary to cross rugged mountain ranges, to storm cities placed on inaccessible cliffs or rendered difficult of access by elaborate fortifications. Similarly oratory will always be glad of the opportunity of manœuvring in all its freedom and delighting the spectator by the deployment of its full strength for conflict in the open field;
9.2. ut gerentibus bella non semper exercitus per plana et amoena ducendus est, sed adeundi plerumque asperi colles, expugnandae civitates quamlibet praecisis impositae rupibus aut operum mole difficiles, ita oratio gaudebit quidem occasione laetius decurrendi et aequo congressa campo totas vires populariter explicabit;
9.3. but if it is forced to enter the tortuous defiles of the law, or dark places whence the truth has to be dragged forth, it will not go prancing in front of the enemy's lines nor launch its shafts of quivering and passionate epigram of the fashion that is now so popular, but will wage war by means of sap and mine and ambush and all the tactics of secrecy.
9.3. at si iuris anfractus aut eruendae veritatis latebras adire cogetur, non obequitabit nec illis vibrantibus concitatisque sententiis velut missilibus utetur, sed operibus et cuniculis et insidiis et occultis artibus rem geret.
9.4. None of these methods win applause during their actual execution: the reward comes after they have been carried to a successful termination, when even the most ambitious will reap a richer recompense than they could ever have secured by other means. For so soon as the thunders of applause awakened among their admirers by these affected declamatory displays have died away, the glory of true virtue rises again with renewed splendour, the judges do not conceal who it is has moved them, the well-trained orator wins their belief and oratory receives its only genuine tribute, the praise accorded it when its task is done.
9.4. omnia non dum fiunt laudantur, sed cum facta sunt; unde etiam cupidissimis opinionis plus fructus venit. cum illa dicendi vitiosa iactatio inter plausores suos detonuit, resurgit verae virtutis fortior fama, nec iudices a quo sint moti, dissimulant, et doctis creditur, nec est orationis vera laus nisi cum finita est.
9.5. The old orators indeed used to conceal their eloquence, a method which is recommended by Marcus Antonius, as a means of securing that the speaker's words should carry conviction and of masking the advocate's real designs. But the truth is that the eloquence of those days was capable of concealment, for it had not yet attained that splendour of diction which makes it impossible to hide its light under a bushel. Therefore artifice and stratagem should be masked, since detection in such cases spells failure. Thus far, and thus only, may eloquence hope to enjoy the advantages of secrecy.
9.5. quidem etiam dissimulare eloquentiam fuit moris, idque M. Antonius praecipit, quo plus dicentibus fidei minusque suspectae advocatorum insidiae forent. illa dissimulari, quae tum erat, potuit; nondum enim tantum dicendi lumen accesserat, ut etiam per obstantia erumperet. artes quidem et consilia lateant et quidquid, si deprehenditur, perit. eloquentia secretum habet.
9.6. But when we come to consider the choice of words, the weight essential to general reflexions and the elegance demanded by figures, we are confronted by elements which must either strike the attention or be condemned to nonexistence. But the very fact that they strike the attention is a reason why they should not flaunt themselves obtrusively. And, if we have to make the choice, I should prefer that it should be the cause, and not the orator, to which we award our praise. Nevertheless, the true orator will achieve the distinction of seeming to speak with all the excellence that an excellent case deserves. One thing may be regarded as certain, that no one can plead worse than he who wins applause despite the disapproval meted out to his case. For the inevitable conclusion is that the applause must have been evoked by something having no connexion with the case.
9.6. quidem delectus, gravitas sententiarum, figurarum elegantia aut non sunt aut apparent. vel propter hoc ipsum ostendenda non sunt quod apparent; aut si unum sit ex duobus eligendum, causa potius laudetur quam patronus. tamen hunc praestabit orator, ut videatur optimam causam optime egisse. certum erit neminem peius agere quam qui displicente causa placet; necesse est enim extra causam sit quod placet.
9.7. Further, the true orator will not turn up his nose at cases of minor importance on the ground of their being beneath his dignity or as being likely to detract from his reputation because the subject matter does not allow his genius full scope. For the strongest reason for undertaking a case is to be fund in our duty towards our clients: nay, we should even desire the suits in which our friends are involved to he as unimportant as possible, and remember that the advocate who gives an adequate presentment to his case, has spoken exceeding well.
9.7. illo fastidio laborabit orator non agendi causas minores, tanquam infra eum sint aut detractura sit opinioni minus liberalis materia. et suscipiendi ratio iustissima est officium, et optandum etiam ut amici quam minimas lites habeant; et abunde dixit bene, quisquis rei satisfecit.
9.8. But there are so he who, even although the cases which they have undertaken give but small scope for eloquence, none the less trick it out with matter drawn from without and, if all else fails, fill up the gaps in their case with abuse of their opponents, true if possible, but false if necessary, the sole consideration that weighs with them being that it affords exercise for their talents and is likely to win applause during its delivery. Such conduct seems to me so unworthy of our perfect orator that, in my opinion, he will not even bring true charges against his opponents unless the case demand.
9.8. quidam, etiamsi forte susceperunt negotia paulo ad dicendum tenuiora, extrinsecus adductis ea rebus circumlinunt ac, si defecerint alia, conviciis implent vacua causarum, si contingit, veris, si minus, fictis, modo sit materia ingenii mereaturque clamorem dum dicitur. ego adeo longe puto ab oratore perfecto, ut eum ne vera quidem obiecturum, nisi id causa exigit, credam.
9.9. For it is a dog's eloquence, as Appius says, to undertake the task of abusing one's opponent, and they who do so should steel themselves in advance to the prospect of being targets for like abuse themselves, since those who adopt this style of pleading are frequently attacked themselves, and there can at any rate be no doubt that the litigant pays dearly for the violence of his advocate. But such faults are less serious than that which lies deep in the soul itself, making the evil speaker to differ from the evil doer only in respect of opportunity.
9.9. est enim prorsus canina, ut ait Appius, eloquentia, cognituram male dicendi subire; quod facientibus etiam male audiendi praesumenda patientia est. et in ipsos fit impetus frequenter, qui egerunt, et certe petulantiam patron litigator luit. haec minora sunt ipso illo vitio animi, quod maledicus a malefico non distat nisi occasione.
9.10. It is not uncommon for the litigant to demand a base and inhuman gratification of his rancour, such as not a single man among the audience will approve, for it is on revenge rather than on protection that his heart is set. But in this, as in a number of other points, it is the duty of the orator to refuse to comply with his clients' desires. For how can a man with the least degree of gentlemanly feeling consent to make a brutal attack merely because another desires it?
9.10. voluptas et inhumana et nulli audientium bona gratia a litigatoribus quidem frequenter exigitur, qui ultionem malunt quam defensionem. neque alia multa ad arbitrium eorum facienda sunt. quidem quis hominum liberi modo sanguinis sustineat petulans esse ad alterius arbitrium?
9.11. And yet there are some who take pleasure in directing their onslaughts against their opponents' counsel as well, a practice which, unless they have deserved such attacks, shows an inhuman disregard of the duties incumbent on the profession, and is not merely useless to the speaker (since he thereby gives his opponent the right to reply in the same strain), but contrary to the interests of his case, since it creates a hosthe and antagonistic disposition in the advocates attacked, whose eloquence, however feeble it may be, will be redoubled by resentment at the insults to which they have been subjected.
9.11. etiam in advocatos partis adversae libenter nonnulli invehuntur; quod, nisi si forte meruerunt, et inhumanum est respectu communium officiorum, et cum ipsi qui dicit inutile (nam idem iuris responsuris datur), tum causae contrarium, cui plane adversarii fiunt et inimici, et quantulumcunque eis uirium est, contumelia augetur.
9.12. Above all, it involves a complete waste of one of the most valuable of an orator's assets, namely that self-restraint which gives weight and credit to his words, if he debases himself from an honest man into a snarling wrangler, directing all his efforts not to win the goodwill of the judge, but to gratify his client's spite.
9.12. omnia perit illa, quae plurimum oratori et auctoritatis et fidei adfert, modestia, si a viro bono in rabulam latratoremque convertitur, compositus non ad animum iudicis sed ad stomachum litigatoris.
9.13. Often too the attractions of freedom of speech will lure him into a rashness of language perilous not merely to the interests of the case, but to those of the speaker himself. It was not without good reason that Pericles used to pray that no word might occur to his mind that could give offence to the people. But what he felt with regard to the people, I feel with regard to every audience, since they can cause just as much harm to the orator as the people could ever do to Pericles. For utterances which seemed courageous at the moment of speaking, are called foolish when it is found that they have given offence.
9.13. etiam species libertatis deducere ad temeritatem solet non causis modo, sed ipsis quoque, qui dixerunt, periculosam. Nec immerito Pericles solebat optare, ne quod sibi verbum in mentem veniret, quo populus offenderetur. quod ille de populo, id ego de omnibus sentio, qui tantundem possunt nocere. quae fortia dum dicuntur videbantur, stulta cum laeserunt vocantur.
9.14. In view of the tact that there is commonly a great variety in the aims which pleaders set before themselves and that the diligence shown by some is branded as tedious caution, while the readiness of others is criticised as rashness, I think that this will be an appropriate place to set forth my views as to how the orator may strike the happy mean.
9.14. , quia varium fere propositum agentium fuit, et quorundam cura tarditatis, quorundam facilitas temeritatis crimine laboravit, quem credam fore in hoc oratoris modum, tradere non alienum videtur.
9.15. He will show all the diligence of which he is capable in his pleading. For to plead worse than he might have done, is not merely an indication of negligence, but stamps him as a had man and a traitor, disloyal to the cause which he has undertaken. Consequently he must refuse to undertake more cases than he feels he can manage.
9.15. ad dicendum curae semper quantum plurimum poterit. enim hoc solum negligentis, sed mali et in suscepta causa perfidi ac proditoris est, peius agere quam possit. ne suscipiendae quidem sunt causae plures quam quibus suffecturum se sciat.
9.16. As far as possible he will deliver only what he has written, and, if circumstances permit, only what he has, as Demosthenes says, carved into shape. Such a practice is possible in first hearings and also in subsequent hearings such as are granted in the public courts after an interval of several days. On the other hand, when we have to reply on the spot, it is impossible to prepare everything: in fact for the less ready type of speaker, it may, in the event of his opponents putting forward arguments quite other than those which they were expected to advance, be a positive drawback to have written anything.
9.16. scripta quam res patietur plurima et, ut Demosthenes ait, si continget, et sculpta. hoc aut primae actiones aut quae in publicis iudiciis post interiectos dies dantur permiserint; at cum protinus respondendum est, omnia parari non possunt, adeo ut paulo minus promptis etiam noceat scripsisse, si alia ex diverso, quam opinati fuerint, occurrerint.
9.17. For it is only with reluctance that such speakers will under such circumstances consent to abandon what they have written, and throughout their pleading keep looking back and trying to discover whether any portion of their manuscript can be saved from the wreck and interpolated into what they have to improvise. And if they do make such interpolations, the result is a lack of' cohesion which is betrayed not merely by the gaping of the seams where the patch has been unskilfully inserted, but by the differences of style.
9.17. enim recedunt a praeparatis et tota actione respiciunt requiruntque, num aliquid ex illis intervelli atque ex tempore dicendis inseri possit; quod si fiat, non cohaeret nec commissuris modo, ut in opere male iuncto, hiantibus sed ipsa coloris inaequalitate detegitur.
9.18. Consequently, the vigour of their eloquence will be hampered and their thought will lack connexion, each of which circumstances reacts unfavourably upon the other, since what is written trammels the mind instead of following its lead. Therefore, in such pleadings we must, as the rustic adage says, “stand on all our feet.”
9.18. nec liber est impetus nec cura contexta, et utrumque alteri obstat; illa enim quae scripta sunt reticent animum, non sequuntur. in his actionibus omni, ut agricolae dicunt, pede standum est.
9.19. For since the case turns on the propounding and refutation of arguments, it is always possible to write out what we propose to advance on our own behalf, and similar preparation is also possible with regard to the refutation of such replies as are absolutely certain to be made by our adversary: for there are times when we have this certainty. But with regard to all other portions of our speech, the only preparation that is possible in advance consists in a thorough knowledge of our case, while there is a second precaution which may be taken in court, consisting in giving our best attention to our opponent's speech.
9.19. cum in propositione ac refutatione causa consistat, quae nostrae partis sunt scripta esse possunt, quae etiam responsurum adversarium certum est (est enim aliquando certum) pari cura refelluntur. alia unum paratum adferre possumus, ut causam bene noverimus, alterum ibi sumere, ut dicentem adversarium diligenter audiamus.
9.20. On the other hand, there is much that may be thought out in advance and we may forearm our mind against all possible emergencies, a course which is far safer than writing, since a train of thought can easily be abandoned or diverted in a new direction. But whether we have to improvise a reply, or are obliged to speak extempore by some other reason, the orator on whom training, study and practice have conferred the gift of facility, will never regard himself as lost or taken at hopeless disadvantage.
9.20. tamen praecogitare plura et animum ad omnes casus componere, idque est tutius stilo, quo facilius et omittitur cogitatio et transfertur. sive in respondendo fuerit subito dicendum, sive quae alia ita exegerit ratio, non oppressum se ac deprehensum credet orator, cui disciplina et studium et exercitatio dederit vires etiam facilitatis;
9.21. He stands armed for battle, ever ready for the fray, and his eloquence will no more fail him in the courts than speech will fail him in domestic affairs and the daily concerns of life: and he will never shirk his burden for fear of failing to find words, provided he has time to study his case: for all other knowledge will always be his at command.
9.21. quem armatum semper ac velut in procinctu stantem non magis unquam in causis oratio quam in rebus cotidianis ac domesticis sermo deficiet, nec se unquam propter hoc oneri subtrahet, modo sit causae discendae tempus; nam cetera semper sciet.
10.1. The question of the “kind of style” to be adopted remains to be discussed. This was described in my original division of my subject as forming its third portion: for I promised that I would speak of the art, the artist and the work. But since oratory is the work both of rhetoric and of the orator, and since it has many forms, as I shall show, the art and the artist are involved in the consideration of all these forms. But they differ greatly from one another, and not merely in species, as statue differs from statue, picture from picture and speech from speech, but in genus as well, as, for example, Etruscan statues differ from Greek and Asiatic orators from Attic.
10.1. ut dicam de genere orationis. erat propositus a nobis in division prima locus tertius; nam ita promiseram me de arte, de artifice, de opere dicturum. sit autem rhetorices atque oratoris opus oratio pluresque eius formae, sicut ostendam, in omnibus his et ars est et artifex. tamen invicem differunt; nec solum specie, ut signum signo et tabula tabulae et actio actioni, sed genere ipso, ut Graecis Tuscanicae statuae, ut Asianus eloquens Attico.
10.2. But these different kinds of work, of which I speak, are not merely the product of different authors, but have each their own following of admirers, with the result that the perfect orator has not yet been found, a statement which perhaps may be extended to all arts, not merely because some qualities are more evident in some artists than in others, but because one single form will not satisfy all critics, a fact which is due in part to conditions of time or place, in part to the taste and ideals of individuals.
10.2. autem haec operum genera, quae dico, ut auctores, sic etiam amatores habent; atque ideo nondum est perfectus orator ac nescio an ars ulla, non solum quia aliud in alio magis eminet, sed quod non una omnibus forma placuit, partim condicione vel temporum vel locorum, partim iudicio cuiusque atque proposito.
10.3. The first great painters, whose works deserve inspection for something more than their mere antiquity, are said to have been Polygnotus and Aglaopllon, whose simple colouring has still such enthusiastic admirers that they prefer these almost primitive works, which may be regarded as the first foundations of the art that was to be, over the works of the greatest of their successors, their motive being, in my opinion, an ostentatious desire to seem persons of superior taste.
10.3. , quorum quidem opera non vetustatis modo gratia visenda sunt, clari pictores fuisse dicuntur Polygnotus atque Aglaophon, quorum simplex color tam sui studiosos adhuc habet, ut illa prope rudia ac velut futurae mox artis primordia maximis, qui post eos exstiterunt, auctoribus praeferant, proprio quodam intelligendi, ut mea opinio est, ambitu.
10.4. Later Zeuxis and Parrhasius contributed much to the progress of painting. These artists were separated by no great distance of time, since both flourished about the period of the Peloponnesian war: for example, Xenophon has preserved a conversation between Socrates and Parrhasius. The first-mentioned seems to have discovered the method of representing light and shade, while the latter is said to have devoted special attention to the treatment of line.
10.4. Zeuxis atque Parrhasius non multum aetate distantes, circa Peloponnesia ambo tempora (Nam cum Parrhasio sermo Socratis apud Xenophontem invenitur) plurimum arti addiderunt. prior luminum umbrarumque inuenisse rationem, secundus examinasse subtilius lineas traditur.
10.5. For Zeuxis emphasised the limbs of the human body, thinking thereby to add dignity and grandeur to his style: it is generally supposed that in this he followed the example of Homer, who likes to represent even his female characters as being of heroic mould. Parrhasius, on the other hand, was so fine a draughtsman that he has been styled the law-giver of his art, on the ground that all other artists take his representations of gods and heroes as models, as though no other course were possible.
10.5. Zeuxis plus membris corporis dedit, id amplius atque augustius ratus atque, ut existimant, Homerum secutus, cui validissima quaeque forma etiam in feminis placet. vero ita circumscripsit omnia, ut eum legum latorem vocent, quia deorum atque heroum effigies, quales ab eo sunt traditae, ceteri, tanquam ita necesse sit, sequuntur.
10.6. It was, however, from about the period of the reign of Philip down to that of the successors of Alexander that painting flourished more especially, although the different artists are distinguished for different excellences. Protogenes, for example, was renowned for accuracy, Pamphilus and Melanthius for soundness of taste, Antiphilus for facility, Theon of Samos for his depiction of imaginary scenes, known as φαντασίαι, and Apelles for genius and grace, in the latter of which qualities he took especial pride. Euphranor, on the other hand, was admired on the ground that, while he ranked with the most eminent masters of other arts, he at the same time achieved marvellous skill in the arts of sculpture and painting.
10.6. autem circa Philippum et usque ad successores Alexandri pictura praecipue, sed diversis virtutibus. cura Protogenes, ratione Pamphilus ac Melanthius, facilitate Antiphilus, concipiendis visionibus, quas φαντασίας vocant, Theon Samius, ingenio et gratia, quam in se ipse maxime iactat, Apelles est praestantissimus. Euphranorem admirandum facit, quod et ceteris optimis studiis inter praecipuos et pingendi fingendique idem mirus artifex fuit.
10.7. The same differences exist between sculptors. The art of Callon and Hegesias is somewhat rude and recalls the Etruscans, but the work of Calamis has already begun to be less stiff, while Myron's statues show a greater softness of form than had been achieved by the artists just mentioned. Polyclitus surpassed all others for care and grace, but although the majority of critics account him as the greatest of sculptors, to avoid making him faultless they express the opinion that his work is lacking in grandeur.
10.7. in statuariis differentia Nam duriora et Tuscanicis proxima Callon atque Hegesias, iam minus rigida Calamis, molliora adhuc supra dictis Myron fecit. ac decor in Polyclito supra ceteros, cui quamquam a plerisque tribuitur palma, tamen, ne nihil detrahatur, deesse pondus putant.
10.8. For while he gave the human form an ideal grace, he is thought to have been less successful in representing the dignity of the gods. he is further alleged to have shrunk from representing persons of maturer years, and to have ventured on nothing more difficult than a smooth and beardless face. But the qualities lacking in Polyclitus are allowed to have been possessed by Phidias and Alcamenes.
10.8. ut humane formae decorem addiderit supra verum, ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur. aetatem quoque graviorem dicitur refugisse nihil ausus ultra leves genas. quae Polyclito defuerunt, Phidiae atque Alcameni dantur.
10.9. On the other hand, Phidias is regarded as more gifted in his representation of gods than of men, and indeed for chryselephantine statues he is without a peer, as he would in truth be, even if he had produced nothing in this material beyond his Minerva at Athens and his Jupiter at Olympia in Elis, whose beauty is such that it is said to have added something even to the awe with which the god was already regarded: so perfectly did the majesty of the work give the impression of godhead. Lysippus and Praxiteles are asserted to be supreme as regards faithfulness to nature. For Demetrius is blamed for carrying realism too far, and is less concerned about the beauty than the truth of his work.
10.9. Phidias tamen diis quam hominibus efficiendis melior artifex creditur in ebore vero longe citra aemulum, vel si nihil nisi Minervam Athenis aut Olympium in Elide Iovem fecisset, cuius pulchritudo adiecisse aliquid etiam receptae religioni videtur; adeo maiestas operis deum aequavit. veritatem Lysippum ac Praxitelen accessisse optime adfirmant. Demetrius tanquam nimius in ea reprehenditur et fuit similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior.
10.10. Now, if we turn our attention to the various styles of oratory, we shall find almost as great variety of talents as there are of personal appearance. There were certain kinds of oratory which, owing to the circumstances of the age, suffered from lack of polish, although in other respects they displayed remarkable genius. In this class we may place orators such as Laelius, Africanus, Cato, and even the Gracchi, whom we may call the “Polygnoti” and “Callones” of oratory.
10.10. oratione vero si species intueri velis, totidem paene reperias ingeniorum quot corporum formas. fuere quaedam genera dicendi condicione temporum horridiora, alioqui magnam iam ingenii vim prae se ferentia. sint Laelii, Africani, Catones etiam Gracchique, quos tu licet Polygnotos vel Callonas appelles. illam formam teneant L. Crassus, Q. Hortensius.
10.11. Among orators of the intermediate type we may rank Lucius Crassus and Quintus Hortensius. Then let us turn to a vast harvest of orators who flourished much about the same period. It is here that we find the vigour of Caesar, the natural talent of Caelius, the subtlety of Calidius, the accuracy of Pollio, the dignity of Messala, the austerity of Calvus, the gravity of Brutus, the acumen of Sulpicius and the bitterness of Cassius, while among those whom we have seen ourselves we admire the fluency of Seneca, the strength of Africanus, the mellowness of Afer, the charm of Crispus, the sonority of Trachalus and the elegance of Secundus.
10.11. deinde efflorescat non multum inter se distantium tempore oratorum ingens proventus. vim Caesaris, indolem Caelii, subtilitatem Calidii, diligentiam Pollionis, dignitatem Messalae, sanctitatem Calvi, gravitatem Bruti, acumen Sulpicii, acerbitatem Cassii reperiemus; in iis etiam, quos ipsi vidimus, copiam Senecae, vires Africani, maturitatem Afri, iucunditatem Crispi, sonum Trachali, elegantiam Secundi.
10.12. But in Cicero we have one who is not, like Euphranor, merely distinguished in a number of different forms of art, but is supreme in all the different qualities which are praised in each individual orator. And yet even his own contemporaries ventured to attack him on the ground that he was bombastic, Asiatic, redundant, given to excessive repetition, liable at times to be pointless in his witticisms, sensuous, extravagant and (an outrageous accusation!) almost effeminate in his rhythm.
10.12. M. Tullium non illum habemus Euphranorem circa plures artium species praestantem, sed in omnibus, quae in quoque laudantur, eminentissimum. tamen et suorum homines temporum incessere audebant ut tumidiorem et Asianum et redundantem et in repetitionibus nimium et in salibus aliquando frigidum et in compositione fractum, exultantem ac paene, quod procul absit, viro molliorem;
10.13. And later, after he had fallen a victim to the proscription of the second triumvirate, those who hated and envied him and regarded him as their rival, nay, even those who had flattered him in the days of his power, attacked him now that he could no longer reply. But that very man, who is now regarded by some as being too jejune and dry, was attacked by his personal enemies on no other ground than that his style was too florid and his talents too little under control. Both charges are false, but there is more colour for the he in the latter case than in the former.
10.13. postea vero quam triumvirali proscriptione consumptus est, passim qui oderant, qui invidebant qui aemulabantur, adulatores etiam praesentis potentiae non responsurum inuaserunt. tamen, qui ieiunus a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire quam nimiis floribus et ingenii affluentia potuit. utrumque, sed tamen ilia mentiendi propior occasio.
10.14. Those, however, who criticised him most severely were the speakers who desired to be regarded as the imitators of Attic oratory. This coterie, regarding themselves as the sole initiates in the mysteries of their art, assailed him as an alien, indifferent to their superstitions and refusing to be bound by their laws. Their descendants are among us to-day, a withered, sapless and anemic band.
10.14. vero presserunt eum, qui videri Atticorum imitatores concupierant. manus quasi quibusdam sacris initiata ut alienigenam et parum superstitiosum devinctumque illis legibus insequebatur; unde nunc quoque aridi et exsuci et exangues.
10.15. For it is they that flaunt their weakness under the name of health, in defiance of the actual truth, and because they cannot endure the dazzling rays of the sun of eloquence, hide themselves beneath the shadow of a mighty name. However, as Cicero himself answered them at length and in a number of passages, it will be safer for me to be brief in my treatment of this topic.
10.15. sunt enim, qui suae imbecillitati sanitatis appellationem, quae est maxime contraria, obtendant; qui, quia clariorem vim eloquentiae velut solem ferre non possunt, umbra magni nominis delitescunt. quia multa et pluribus locis Cicero ipse respondit, tutior mihi de hoc disserendi brevitas erit.
10.16. The distinction between the Attic and the Asiatic schools takes us back to antiquity. The former were regarded as concise and healthy, the latter as empty and inflated: the former were remarkable for the absence of all superfluity, while the latter were deficient alike in taste and restraint. The reason for this division, according to some authorities, among them Santra, is to be found in the fact that, as Greek gradually extended its range into the neighbouring cities of Asia, there arose a class of men who desired to distinguish themselves as orators before they had acquired sufficient command of the language, and who consequently began to express by periphrases what could have been expressed directly, until finally this practice became an ingrained habit.
10.16. antiqua quidem illa divisio inter Atticos atque Asianos fuit, cum hi pressi et integri, contra inflati illi et inanes haberentur, in his nihil superflueret, illis iudicium maxime ac modus deesset. quidam, quorum et Santra est, hoc putant accidisse, quod, paulatim sermone Graeco in proximas Asiae civitates influente, nondum satis periti loquendi facundiam concupierint, ideoque ea, quae proprie signari poterant, circuitu coeperint enuntiare ac deinde in eo perseverarint.
10.17. My own view, however, is that the difference between the two styles is attributable to the character both of the orators and the audiences whom they addressed: the Athenians, with their polish and refinement, refused to tolerate emptiness and redundance, while the Asiatics, being naturally given to bombast and ostentation, were puffed up with a passion for a more vainglorious style of eloquence.
10.17. autem orationis differentiam fecisse et dicentium et audientium naturae videntur, quod Attici limati quidam et emuncti nihil inane aut redundans ferebant, Asiana gens tumidior alioqui atque iactantior vaniore etiam dicendi gloria inflate est.
10.18. At a later period, the critics, to whom we owe this classification, added a third style, the Rhodian, which they asserted to he midway between the two and to be a blend of both, since the orators of this school are neither so concise as the Attic nor redundant like the Asiatic school, but appear to derive their style in part from their national characteristics, in part from those of their founder.
10.18. mox, qui haec dividebant, adiecerunt genus Rhodium, quod velut medium esse atque ex utroque mixtum volunt; neque enim Attice pressi neque Asiane sunt abundantes, ut aliquid habere videantur gentis, aliquid auctoris.
10.19. For it was Aeschines who introduced the culture of Athens at Rhodes, which he had chosen as his place of exile: and just as certain plants degenerate as a result of change of soil and climate, so the fine Attic flavour was marred by the admixture of foreign ingredients. Consequently certain of the orators of this school are regarded as somewhat slow and lacking in energy, though not devoid of a certain weight, and as resembling placid pools rather than the limpid springs of Athens or the turbid torrents of Asia.
10.19. Aeschines enim, qui hunc exilio delegerat locum, intulit eo studia Athenarum, quae, velut sata quaedam caelo terraque degenerant, saporem illum Atticum peregrino miscuerunt. ergo quidam ac remissi, non sine pondere tamen neque fontibus puris neque torrentibus turbidis, sed lenibus stagnis similes habentur.
10.20. No one therefore should have any hesitation in pronouncing Attic oratory to be by far the best. But although all Attic writers have something in comion, namely a keen and exact judgement, their talents manitest themselves in a number of different forms.
10.20. igitur dubitaverit, longe esse optimum genus Atticorum. quo ut est aliquid inter ipsos commune, id est indicium acre tersumque, ita ingeniorum plurimae formae.
10.21. Consequently I regard those critics as committing a serious error who regard only those authors as Attic who, while they are simple, lucid and expressive, are none the less content with a certain frugality of eloquence, and keep their hands modestly within the folds of their cloaks. For what author is there who answers to this conception? I am prepared to grant that there is Lysias, since he is the favourite model of the admirers of this school, and such an admission will save us from being referred to Coccus and Andocides.
10.21. milii falli multum videntur, qui solos esse Atticos credunt tenues et lucidos et significantes sed quadam eloquentiae frugalitate contentos ac semper manum intra pallium continentes. quis erit hic Atticus? Lysias; hunc enim amplectuntur amatores istius nominis modum. igitur iam usque ad Coccum et Andocidem remittemur. tamen velim, an Isocrates Attice dixerit.
10.22. But I should like to ask whether Isocrates spoke in the Attic style. For there is no author less like Lysias. They will answer in the negative. And yet it is to the school of Isocrates that we owe the greatest orators. Let us look for something closer. Is Hyperides Attic? Yes, they reply, but of an over-sensuous character. I pass by a number of orators, such as Lyucrgus and Aristogeiton and their predecessors Isaeus and Antiphon; for though they have a certain generic resemblance, they may be said to differ in species.
10.22. enim tam est Lysiae diversum.. At eius schola principes oratorum dedit. similius aliquid. Hyperides Atticus?, at plus indulsit voluptati. plurimos, Lycurgum, Aristogitona et his priores Isaeum, Antiphonta; quos ut homines inter se genere similes, differentes dixeris specie. ille, cuius modo fecimus mentionem, Aeschines?
10.23. But what of Aesehines, whom I mentioned just now? Is not his style ampler and holder and more lofty than theirs? And what of Demosthenes himself? Did not he surpass all those simple and circumspect orators in force, loftiness, energy, polish and rhythm? Does he not rise to great heights in his commonplaces Does he not rejoice in the employment of figures? Does he not make brilliant use of metaphor? Does he not lend a voice, a fictitious utterance to speechless things?
10.23. nonne his latior et audentior et excelsior? denique Demosthenes? non cunctos illos tenues et circumspectos vi, sublimitate, impetu, cultu, conpositione superavit? non insurgit locis? non figuris gaudet? non translationibus nitet? non oratione ficta dat tacentibus vocem?
10.24. Does not his famous oath by the warriors who fell fighting for their country at Salamis and Marathon show that Plato was his master? And shall we call Plato an Asiatic, Plato who as a rule deserves comparison with poets instinct with the divine fire of inspiration? What of Pericles? Can we believe that his style was like the slender stream of Lysias' eloquence, when the comedians, even while they revile him, compare his oratory to the bolts and thunder of the skies?
10.24. non illud iusiurandum per caesos in Marathone ac Salamine propugnatores rei publicae satis manifesto docet praeceptorem eius Platonem fuisse? quem ipsum num Asianum appellabimus plerumque instinctis divino spiritu vatibus comparandum? Periclea? similemne credemus Lysiacae gracilitati, quem fulminibus et caelesti fragori comparant comici, dum illi conviciantur? est igitur, cur in iis demum, qui tenui venula per calculos fluunt, Atticum saporem putent, ibi demum thymum redolere dicant?
10.25. What is the reason, then, why these critics regard that style which flows in a slender trickle and babbles among the pebbles as having the true Attic flavour and the true scent of Attic thyme? I really think that, if they were to discover a soil of exceptional richness and a crop of unusual abundance within the boundaries of Attica, they would deny it to be Attic, on the ground that it has produced more seed than it received: for you will remember the mocking comments passed by Menander on the exact fidelity with which the soil of Attica repays its deposits.
10.25. ego existimo, si quod in iis finibus uberius invenerint solum fertilioremve segetem, negaturos Atticam esse, quod plus, quam acceperit, seminis reddat, quia hanc eius terrae fidem Menander eludit.
10.26. Well, then, if any man should, in addition to the actual virtues which the great orator Demosthenes possessed, show himself to be the possessor of others, that either owing to his own temperament or the laws of Athens Demosthenes is thought to have lacked, and should reveal in himself the power of strongly stirring the emotions, shall I hear one of these critics protesting that Demosthenes never did this? And if he produces something rhythmically superior (an impossible feat, perhaps, but let us assume it to be so), are we to be told that it is not Attic? These critics would show finer feeling and better judgement, if they took the view that Attic eloquence meant perfect eloquence.
10.26. nunc, si quis ad eas Demosthenis virtutes, quas ille summus orator habuit, tamen quae defuisse ei sive ipsius natura seu lege civitatis videntur, adiecerit, ut adfectus concitatius moveat, audiam dicentem, fecit hoc Demosthenes? et si quid numeris exierit aptius (fortasse non possit, sed tamen si quid exierit) non erit Atticum? de hoc nomine sentiant credantque Attice dicere esse optime dicere.
10.27. Still I should find this attitude less intolerable if it were only the Greeks that insisted on it. For Latin eloquence, although in my opinion it closely resembles the Greek as far as invention, arrangement, judgement and the like are concerned, and may indeed be regarded as its disciple, cannot aspire to imitate it in point of elocution. For, in the first place, it is harsher in sound, since our alphabet does not contain the most euphonious of the Greek letters, one a vowel and the other a consonant, than which there are none that fall more sweetly on the ear, and which we are forced to borrow whenever we use Greek words.
10.27. in hac tamen opinione perseverantes Graecos magis tulerim. Latina mihi facundia, ut inventione, dispositione, consilio, ceteris huius generis artibus similis Graecae ac prorsus discipula eius videtur, ita circa rationem eloquendi vix habere imitationis locum. est ipsis statim sonis durior, quando et iucundissimas ex Graecis litteras non habemus, vocalem alteram, alteram consonantem, quibus nullae apud eos dulcius spirant; quas mutuari solemus, quotiens illorum nominibus utimur.
10.28. The result of such borrowing is, for some reason or other, the immediate accession to our language of a certain liveliness and charm. Take, for example, words such as sephyri and zophori: if they were spelt according to the Latin alphabet, they would produce a heavy and barbarous sound. For we replace these letters by others of a harsh and unpleasant character, from which Greece is happily immune.
10.28. cum contingit, nescio quomodo hilarior protinus renidet oratio, ut in Zephyris et. si nostris litteris scribantur, surdum quiddam et barbarum efficient, et velut in locum earum succedunt tristes et horridae, quibus Graecia caret.
10.29. For the sixth letter in our alphabet is represented by a sound which can scarcely be called human or even articulate, being produced by forcing the air through the interstices of the teeth. Such a sound, even when followed by a vowel, is harsh enough and, as often as it clashes ( frangit ) with a consonant, as it does in this very word frangit, becomes harsher still. Then there is the Aeolic digamma whose sound occurs in words such as our servus and cervus; for even though we have rejected the actual form of the letter, we cannot get rid of that which it represents.
10.29. et illa, quae est sexta nostrarum, paene non humana voce vel omnino non voce potius inter discrimina dentium efflanda est; quae, etiam cum vocalem proxima accipit, quassa quodammodo, utique quotiens aliquam consonantium frangit, it in hoc ipso frangit, multo fit horridior. Aeolicae quoque litterae, qua servum ceruumque dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est, vis tamen nos ipsa persequitur.
10.30. Similarly the letter Q, which is superfluous and useless save for the purpose of attaching to itself the vowels by which it is followed, results in the formation of harsh syllables, as, for example, when we write equos and aequum, more especially since these two vowels together produce a sound for which Greek has no equivalent and which cannot therefore be expressed in Greek letters. Again, we have a number of words which end with M, a letter which suggests the mooing of a cow, and is never the final letter in any Greek word: for in its place they use the letters nu, the sound of which is naturally pleasant and produces a ringing tone when it occurs at the end of' a word, whereas in Latin this termination is scarcely ever found. Again, we have syllables which produce such a harsh effect by ending in B and D, that many, not, it is true, of our most ancient writers, but still writers of considerable antiquity, have attempted to mitigate the harshness not merely by saying aversa for abversa, but by adding an S to the preposition ab, although S is an ugly letter in itself Our accents also are less agreeable than those of the Greeks.
10.30. et illa syllabus facit, quae ad coniungendas demum subiectas sibi uocalis est utilis, alias supervacua, ut equos hac et aequum scribimus; cum etiam ipsae hae vocales duae efficiant sonum, qualis apud Graecos nullus est, ideoque scribi illorum litteris non potest.? quod pleraque nos illa quasi mugiente M littera cludimus in quam nullum Graece verbum cadit: at illi ny iucundam et in fine praecipue quasi tinnientem illius loco ponunt, quae est apud nos rarissima in clausulis.? quod syllabae nostrae in B litteram et D innituntur adeo aspere, ut plerique non antiquissimorum quidem, sed tamen veterum mollire temptaverint non solum aversa pro abversis dicendo, sed et in praepositione B litterae absonam et ipsam S subiciendo.
10.33. This is due to a certain rigidity and monotony of pronunciation, since the final syllable is never marked by the rise of the acute accent nor by the rise and fill of the circumflex, but one or even two grave accents are regularly to be found at the end. Consequently the Greek language is so much more agreeable in sound than the Latin, that our poets, whenever they wish their verse to be especially harmonious, adorn it with Greek words.
10.33. accentus quoque, cum rigore quodam, tum similitudine ipsa, minus suaves habemus, quia ultima syllaba nec acuta unquam excitatur nec flexa circumducitur, sed in gravem vel duas graves cadit semper. tanto est sermo Graecus Latino iucundior, ut nostri poetae, quotiens dulce carmen esse voluerint, illorum id nominibus exornent.
10.34. A still stronger indication of the inferiority of Latin is to be found in the fact that there are many things which have no Latin names, so that it is necessary to express them by metaphor or periphrasis, while even in the case of things which have names, the extreme poverty of the language leads us to resort to the same practice. On the other hand, the Greeks have not merely abundance of words, but they have also a number of different dialects.
10.34. ilia potentiora, quod res plurimae carent appellationibus, ut eas necesse sit transferre aut circumire; etiam in iis, quae denominata sunt, summa paupertas in eadem nos frequentissime revolvit; at illis non verborum modo, sed linguarum etiam inter se differentium copia est.
10.35. Consequently he who demands from Latin the grace of Attic Greek, must first provide a like charm of tone and equal richness of vocabulary. If this advantage is denied us, we must adapt our thoughts to suit the words we have and, where our matter is unusually slight and delicate, must avoid expressing it in words which are, I will not say too gross, but at any rate too strong for it, for fear that the combination should result in the destruction both of delicacy and force.
10.35. qui a Latinis exiget illam gratiam sermonis Attici, det mihi in eloquendo eandem iucunditatem et parem copiam. si negatum est, sententias aptabimus iis vocibus quas habemus, nec rerum nimiam tenuitatem, ut non dicam pinguioribus, fortioribus certe verbis miscebimus, ne virtus utraque pereat ipsa confusione.
10.36. For the less help we get from the language, the more must we rely on inventiveness of thought to bring us through the conflict. We must discover sentiments full of loftiness and variety, must stir all the emotions and illumine our style by brilliance of metaphor. Since we cannot be so delicate, let us be stronger. If they beat us for subtlety, let us prevail by weight, and if they have greater precision, let us outdo them in fullness of expression.
10.36. quo minus adiuvat sermo, rerum inventione pugnandum est. sublimes variique eruantur. omnes adfectus erunt, oratio translationum nitore illuminanda. possumus esse tam graciles: simus fortiores. vincimur: valeamus pondere. penes illos est certior: copia vincamus.
10.37. Even the lesser orators of Greece have their own havens where they may ride in safety, while we as a rule carry more sail. Let stronger gales fill our canvas, and yet let us not always keep the high seas; for at times we must cling to shore. The Greeks can easily traverse any shallows; I must find a deeper, though not much deeper, channel, that my bark may not run aground.
10.37. Graecorum etiam minora suos portus habent: nos plerumque maioribus velis mouemur, validior spiritus nostros sinus tendat; non tamen alto semper feremur, nam et litora interim sequenda sunt. facilis per quaelibet vada accessus; ego aliquid, non multo tamen, altius, in quo mea cumba non sidat, inveniam.
10.38. For even though the Greeks surpass us where circumstances call for delicacy and restraint, though we acknowledge their superiority in this respect alone, and therefore do not claim to rival them in comedy, that is no justification for our abandonment of this department of oratory, but rather a reason why we should handle it as best we can. Now we can at any rate resemble the Greeks in the method and judgement with which we treat our matter, although that grace of language, which our words cannot provide, must be secured by the admixture of foreign condiments.
10.38. enim, si tenuiora haec ac pressiora Graeci melius, in eoque vincimur solo et ideo in comoediis non contendimus, prorsus tamen omittenda pars haec orationis, sed exigenda ut optime possumus; possumus autem rerum et modo et iudicio esse similes, verborum gratia, quam in ipsis non habemus, extrinsecus condienda est.
10.39. For example, is not Cicero shrewd, simple and not unduly exalted in tone, when he deals with private eases? Is not Calidius also distinguished for the same virtue? Were not Scipio, Laelius and Cato the Attic orators of Rome? Surely we ought to be satisfied with them, since nothing can be better.
10.39. non in privatis et acutus et indistinctus et non super modum elatus M. Tullius? non in M. Calidio insignis haec virtus? non Scipio, Laelius, Cato in eloquendo uelut Attici Romanorum fuerunt? porro non satis est, quo nihil esse melius potest?
10.40. There are still some critics who deny that any form of eloquence is purely natural, except that which closely resembles the ordinary speech of everyday life, which we use to our friends, our wives, our children and our slaves, a language, that is to say, which contents itself with expressing the purpose of the mind without seeking to discover anything in the way of elaborate and far-fetched phraseology. And they hold that whatever is added to this simplicity lays the speaker open to the charge of affectation and pretentious ostentation of speech, void of all sincerity and elaborated merely for the sake of the words, although the sole duty assigned to words by nature is to be the servants of thought.
10.40. quidam nullam esse naturalem putant eloquentiam, nisi quae sit cotidiano sermoni simillima, quo cum amicis, coniugibus, liberis, servis loquamur, contento promere animi voluntatem nihilque arcessiti et elaborati requirente; quidquid huc sit adiectum, id esse adfectationis et ambitiosae in loquendo iactantiae, remotum a veritate fictumque ipsorum gratia verborum, quibus solum natura sit officium attributum, servire sensibus:
10.41. Such language may be compared to the bodies of athletes, which although they develop their strength by exercise and diet, are of unnatural growth and abnormal in appearance. For what, say these critics, is the good of expressing a thing by periphrasis or metaphor (that is, either by a number of words or by words which have no connexion with the thing), when everything has been allotted a name of its own?
10.41. sicut athletarum corpora, etiamsi validiora fiant exercitatione et lege quadam ciborum, non tamen esse naturalia atque ab illa specie, quae sit concessa hominibus, abhorrere. enim, inquiunt, attinet circuitu res ostendere et translationibus, id est aut pluribus aut alienis verbis, cum sua cuique sint adsignata nomina?
10.42. Finally, they urge that all the earliest orators spoke according to the dictates of nature, but that subsequently there arose a class of speakers resembling poets rather than orators, who regarded false and artificial methods of expression as positive merits; they were, it is true, more sparing than the poets in their use of such expressions, but none the less worked on similar lines. There is some truth in this contention, and we should therefore be careful not to depart from the more exact usage of ordinary speech to the extent that is done by certain orators.
10.42. antiquissimum quemque maxime secundum naturam dixisse contendunt: mox poetis similiores exstitisse, etiamsi parcius, simili tamen ratione, falsa et impropria virtutes ducentes. in disputatione nonnihil veri est, ideoque non tam procul, quam fit a quibusdam, recedendum a propriis atque communibus.
10.43. On the other hand, that is no reason for thus calumniating the man who, as I said in dealing with the subject of artistic structure, succeeds in improving upon the bare necessaries of style. For the common language of every day seems to me to be of a different character from the style of an eloquent speaker. If all that was required of the latter was merely to indicate the facts, he might rest content with literalness of language, without further elaboration. But since it is his duty to delight and move his audience and to play upon the various feelings, it becomes necessary for him to employ those additional aids which are granted to us by that same nature which gave us speech.
10.43. quis tamen, ut in loco dixi compositionis, ad necessaria, quibus nihil minus est, aliquid melius adiecerit, non erit hac calumnia reprehendendus. mihi aliam quandam videtur habere naturam sermo vulgaris, aliam viri eloquentis oratio; cui si res modo indicare satis esset, nihil ultra verborum proprietatem elaboraret; sed cum debeat delectare, movere, in plurimas animum audientis species impellere, utetur his quoque adiutoriis, quae sunt ab eadem nobis concessa natura.