Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, translator. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.

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.

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, [*]( Friend of Persius, and famous as orator, reciter and historian; died 60 A.D. ) 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.

But that dignity is admirably maintained, thanks to his style, by Aufidius Bassus, [*]( He wrote a history of the empire down to the death of Claudius. The work on the German war was probably a separate work. ) 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.

But there still survives to add lustre to this glorious age a man [*]( Probably Fabius Rusticus. Tacitus would have been too young at this time to be mentioned in such terms. ) worthy to be remembered through all time: he is appreciated today, but after generations shall declare his name

v10-12 p.61
aloud. The bold utterances of Crenutius [*]( 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 the last of all the Romans. ) 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.

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 [*]( See XII. i. 14 sqq. , also XII x. 12 sqq. ) 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.

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.

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

v10-12 p.63
that Demosthenes was deprived by national custom [*](cp. xvi. 4; vi i 7 Quintilian refers to an alleged law at Athens forbidding appeals to the emotion. ) 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.

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.

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 [*](The quotation is not found in Pindar's extant works.) says,

collect the rain from heaven, but wells forth with living water,
since Providence at his birth conferred this special privilege upon him, that eloquence should make trial of all her powers in him.

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.

Further, there is such weight in all that he

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.

It was not, therefore, without good reason that his own contemporaries spoke of his

sovereignty
at the bar, and that for posterity the name of Cicero has come to be regarded not as the name of a man, but as the name of eloquence itself. Let us, therefore, fix our eyes on him, take him as our pattern, and let the student realise that he has made real progress if he is a passionate admirer of Cicero.

Asinius Pollio [*]( Asinius Pollio (75 B.C.—A.D. 4), the friend of Virgil, distinguished as poet, historian and orator. ) 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, [*]( M. Valerius Corvinus (64 B.C.—A.D. 8), the friend of Tibullus and distinguished as an orator. ) on the other hand, is polished and transparent and displays his nobility in his utterance, but he fails to do his powers full justice.

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

v10-12 p.67
student.

Caelius [*]( M. Rufus Caelius, defended by Cicero in the pro Catlio. Killed in 48 B.C. Cp. IV. ii. 123.: VII. i. 53. ) 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 [*]( 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. ) 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.

Servius Sulpicius [*]( Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the greatest jurist of the Ciecronian age. ) acquired a great and well-deserved reputation by his three speeches. Cassius Severus, [*]( assius Severus ( d. A.D. 34) banished by Augustus on account of his scurrilous lampoons. ) if read with discrimination, will provide much that is worthy of imitation: if to his other merits he had added appropriateness of tone and dignity of style,

he would deserve a place among the greatest. 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.

There are many other clever speakers, but it would be a long task to deal with them all. Domitius Afer [*]( Domitius Afer ( d. 59 A.D.), the leading orator of the reigns of Tiberius and his successors. ) and Julius Africanus [*]( Iulius Africanus, a Gaul, who flourished in the reign of Nero. ) 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

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.

For example, Trachalus [*]( M. Galerius Trachalus (cos. (18 A.D.) Cp XII v. 5 ) 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, [*]( Vibius Crispus, a delator under Nero, died about A.D. 90, after acquiring great wealth. Cp. Juv. iv. 81–93. ) again, was well-balanced, agreeable and born to charm, though he was better in private than in public cases.

Julius Secundus, [*]( Julius Secundus, a distinguished orator of the reign of Vespasian. One of the characters in the Dialogus of Tacitus. ) 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.