<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:10.1.99-10.1.109</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:10.1.99-10.1.109</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="99" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Comedy is our weakest point. Although Varro quotes Aelius Stilo <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">The first Roman philologist
                                (141–70 B.C.).</note> as saying that if the Muses wished to speak
                            Latin, they would use the language of Plautus, although the ancients
                            extol Caecilius, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Caecilils
                                (219–166), Terence (194159), Afranius (flor. circ. 150). Only
                                fragments of Caecilius and Afranius remain. </note> 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), </p></div><div n="100" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> we still scarcely succeed in reproducing even a faint shadow of the
                            charm of Greek comedy. Indeed, it seems to me as though the language of
                            Rome were incapable of reproducing that graceful wit which was <pb n="v10-12 p.59"/> granted to Athens alone, and was beyond the reach of
                            other Greek dialects to achieve. Afranius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Caecilils (219–166), Terence (194–159),
                                Afranius (flor. cire. 150) Only fragments of Caecilius and Afanius
                                survive. </note> 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. </p></div><div n="101" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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.
                        </p></div><div n="102" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Friend of Persius, and famous
                                as orator, reciter and historian; died 60 A.D. </note> 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. </p></div><div n="103" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But that dignity is admirably maintained, thanks to his style, by
                            Aufidius Bassus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> He wrote a
                                history of the empire down to the death of Claudius. The work on the
                                German war was probably a separate work. </note> 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.
                        </p></div><div n="104" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But there still survives to add lustre to this glorious age a man <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Probably Fabius Rusticus.
                                Tacitus would have been too young at this time to be mentioned in
                                such terms. </note> worthy to be remembered through all time: he is
                            appreciated today, but after generations shall declare his name <pb n="v10-12 p.61"/> aloud. The bold utterances of Crenutius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Crenutius Cordus wrote a
                                history of the Civil wars and reign of Augustus. He was accused for
                                his praise of Brutus and Cassius, and committed suicide in A.D. 25.
                                It was he who called Cassius <quote>the last of all the
                                    Romans.</quote>
                        </note> 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. </p></div><div n="105" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> See
                                XII. i. 14 <hi rend="italic">sqq.</hi> , also XII x. 12 <hi rend="italic">sqq.</hi>
                        </note> 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. </p></div><div n="106" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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.
                        </p></div><div n="107" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.63"/> that Demosthenes was deprived
                            by national custom <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">cp.</hi> xvi. 4; vi i 7 Quintilian refers to an
                                alleged law at Athens forbidding appeals to the emotion. </note> 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. </p></div><div n="108" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="109" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">The quotation is not
                                found in Pindar's extant works.</note> says, <quote>collect the rain
                                from heaven, but wells forth with living water,</quote> since
                            Providence at his birth conferred this special privilege upon him, that
                            eloquence should make trial of all her powers in him. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>