Institutio Oratoria

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.