<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-eng2:10.1.112-10.1.131</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:10.1.112-10.1.131</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="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 n="120" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Julius Secundus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Julius
                                Secundus, a distinguished orator of the reign of Vespasian. One of
                                the characters in the <hi rend="italic">Dialogus</hi> of Tacitus.
                            </note> 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. </p></div><div n="121" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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.
                        </p></div><div n="122" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.71"/> to
                            tread in their footsteps and imitate their excellence. </p></div><div n="123" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Brutus, omitted from Qauintilian's list of
                                orators, was a follower of the Stoic and Academic schools. He is
                                known to have written treatises on Virtue, Duty and Patience.
                            </note> 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. </p></div><div n="124" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Cornelius Celsus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> An
                                encyclopedic writer under Augustus and Tiberius. His medical
                                treatises have survived. He wrote on oratory also, and is not
                                infrequently quoted by Quintilian. </note> a follower of the Sextii,
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The Sextii, father and
                                son, were Pythagorean philosophers of the Augustan age, with
                                something of a Stoic tendency as well. </note> wrote a number of
                            philosophical works, which have considerable grace and polish. Among the
                            Stoics Plautus <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">123</note> is
                            useful as giving a knowledge of the subject. </p></div><div n="125" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Among the Epicureans Catius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> A
                                contemporary of Cicero, who speaks of him somewhat contemptuously.
                                He wrote four books <hi rend="italic">de rerum matura et de summo
                                    bono.</hi>
                        </note> 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. </p></div><div n="126" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.73"/> 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. </p></div><div n="127" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="128" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="129" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="130" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v10-12 p.75"/> enthusiasm of boys. </p></div><div n="131" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>