Institutio Oratoria

Future ages shall tell of these things more fully; to-day his glory as a poet is dimmed by the splendour of his other virtues. But you will forgive us, Caesar, who worship at the shrine of literature, if we refuse to pass by your achievements in silence and insist on testifying at least that, as Virgil sings,

1. The ivy creeps amid your victor bays

Ecl. viii. 13.

We also challenge the supremacy of the Greeks in elegy. Of our elegiac poets Tibullus seems to me to be the most terse and elegant. There are, however, some who prefer Propertius. Ovid is more sportive than either, while Gallus [*]( Cornelius (Gallus, the friend of Virgil, and the first distinguished writer of elegy at Rome. ) is more severe. Satire, on the other hand, is all our own. The first of our poets to win renown in this connexion was Lucilius, some of whose devotees are so enthusiastic that they do not hesitate to prefer him not merely to all other satirists, but even to all other poets. I disagree with them as much as I do with Horace, [*](Sat. I. iv. 11. )

who holds that Lucilius' verse has a

muddy flow,

v10-12 p.55

and that there is always something in him that might well be dispensed with.

There is, however, another and even older type of satire which derives its variety not merely from verse, but from an admixture of prose as well. Such were the satires composed by Terentius Varro, [*]( His Menippean Satires, of which only fragments survive. Although ostensibly an imitation of the work of the Greek Menippus of Gadara, they can still be said to belong to the older type of satire, the medley or hotch-potch. ) the most learned of all Romans. He composed a vast number of erudite works, and possessed an extraordinary knowledge of the Latin language, of all antiquity and of the history of Greece and Rome. But he is an author likely to contribute more to the knowledge of the student than to his eloquence.

The iambic has not been popular with Roman poets as a separate form of composition, but is found mixed up with other forms of verse. [*]( The meaning is not clear. The words may mean (i that these writers did not confine themselves to the iambus, or (iii that the iambus alternates with other metres, cp. epodos below. ) It may be found in all its bitterness in Catullus, Bibaculus [*]( M. Furius Bibaculus, contemporary of Catullus, and writer of similar invective against the Caesareans. ) and Horace, although in the last-named the iambic is interrupted by the epode. [*](i. e. the short iambic line interposed between the trimeters. ) Of our lyric writers Horace is almost the sole poet worth reading: for he rises at times to a lofty grandeur and is full of sprightliness and charm, while there is great variety in his figures, and his boldness in the choice of words is only equalled by his felicity. If any other lyric poet is to be mentioned, it will be Caesius Bassus, who has but

Among writers of tragedy Accius and Pacuvius [*](Accius (170 90), Pacuvius (220–132).) are most remarkable for the force of their general reflexions, the weight of their words and the dignity of their characters. But they lack polish, and filed to put the finishing touches on their works, although the fault was perhaps rather that of the times in which they lived than of themselves. Accius is generally regarded as the most vigorous, while those who lay claim to learning regard Pacuvius as the more learned of the two.

The Thyestes of Varius [*]( L. Varius Rufus, friend of Virgil and Horace, editor of the Aeneid; wrote epic and a single tragedy. ) is a match for any Greek tragedy, and the Medea of Ovid shows, in my opinion, to what heights that poet might have risen if he had been ready to curb his talents instead of indulging them. Of the tragic writers whom I myself have seen, Pomponius Secundus [*]( Pomponius Secundus, died 60 A.D.; wrote a tragedy entitled Aeneas. ) is by far the best: his older critics thought him insufficiently tragic, but admitted his eminence as far as learning and polish were concerned.

Comedy is our weakest point. Although Varro quotes Aelius Stilo [*](The first Roman philologist (141–70 B.C.).) as saying that if the Muses wished to speak Latin, they would use the language of Plautus, although the ancients extol Caecilius, [*]( Caecilils (219–166), Terence (194159), Afranius (flor. circ. 150). Only fragments of Caecilius and Afranius remain. ) 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),

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

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

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

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,

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