Institutio Oratoria

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

sovereignty

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 [*]( 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. ) 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.

Cornelius Celsus, [*]( An encyclopedic writer under Augustus and Tiberius. His medical treatises have survived. He wrote on oratory also, and is not infrequently quoted by Quintilian. ) a follower of the Sextii, [*]( The Sextii, father and son, were Pythagorean philosophers of the Augustan age, with something of a Stoic tendency as well. ) wrote a number of philosophical works, which have considerable grace and polish. Among the Stoics Plautus [*](123) is useful as giving a knowledge of the subject.

Among the Epicureans Catius [*]( A contemporary of Cicero, who speaks of him somewhat contemptuously. He wrote four books de rerum matura et de summo bono. ) 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.