<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-eng2:10.1.100-10.1.119</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:10.1.100-10.1.119</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="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 n="110" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="111" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Further, there is such weight in all that he <pb n="v10-12 p.65"/> 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. </p></div><div n="112" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> It was not, therefore, without good reason that his own contemporaries
                            spoke of his <quote>sovereignty</quote> 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. </p></div><div n="113" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Asinius Pollio <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Asinius Pollio
                                (75 B.C.—A.D. 4), the friend of Virgil, distinguished as poet,
                                historian and orator. </note> 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, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> M.
                                Valerius Corvinus (64 B.C.—A.D. 8), the friend of Tibullus and
                                distinguished as an orator. </note> on the other hand, is polished
                            and transparent and displays his nobility in his utterance, but he fails
                            to do his powers full justice. </p></div><div n="114" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.67"/> student. </p></div><div n="115" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Caelius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> M. Rufus Caelius,
                                defended by Cicero in the <hi rend="italic">pro Catlio.</hi> Killed
                                in 48 B.C. <hi rend="italic">Cp.</hi> IV. ii. 123.: VII. i. 53.
                            </note> 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 <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Calvus ((Gaius Licinius), a
                                distinguish poet and. with Brutus, the leading orator of the Attic
                                School. He died at the age of 34 in 48 B.C. </note> 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. </p></div><div n="116" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Servius Sulpicius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Servius
                                Sulpicius Rufus, the greatest jurist of the Ciecronian age. </note>
                            acquired a great and well-deserved reputation by his three speeches.
                            Cassius Severus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> assius
                                Severus ( <hi rend="italic">d.</hi> A.D. 34) banished by Augustus on
                                account of his scurrilous lampoons. </note> 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,
                        </p></div><div n="117" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> he would deserve a place among the greatest. 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. </p></div><div n="118" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> There are many other clever speakers, but it would be a long task to
                            deal with them all. Domitius Afer <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Domitius Afer ( <hi rend="italic">d.</hi> 59
                                A.D.), the leading orator of the reigns of Tiberius and his
                                successors. </note> and Julius Africanus <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Iulius Africanus, a Gaul, who flourished in the
                                reign of Nero. </note> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.69"/>
                            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. </p></div><div n="119" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For example, Trachalus <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> M.
                                Galerius Trachalus (cos. (18 A.D.) <hi rend="italic">Cp</hi> XII v.
                                5 </note> 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, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Vibius Crispus, a <hi rend="italic">delator</hi> under Nero, died about A.D. 90, after acquiring
                                great wealth. <hi rend="italic">Cp. Juv.</hi> iv. 81–93. </note>
                            again, was well-balanced, agreeable and born to charm, though he was
                            better in private than in public cases. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>