§10.1.32itaque, ut dixi, neque ilia Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum captanda nobis est; neque illa Livii lactea ubertas satis docebit eum, qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit.
Therefore, as I said, neither must we aim at that Sallustian brevity, than which nothing can be more perfect for unoccupied and erudite ears, when dealing with a judge occupied with various thoughts and more often than not uneducated; nor will that milky richness of Livy sufficiently instruct one who seeks not the outward show of exposition, but credibility.
§10.1.33adde quod M. Tullius ne Thucydidem quidem aut Xenophontem utiles oratori putat, quanquam illum bellicum canere, huius ore Musas esse locutas existimet.
Add to this that Marcus Tullius does not think even Thucydides or Xenophon useful to an orator, although he believes that the former sounds a war-blast and that the Muses spoke through the mouth of the latter.
licet tamen nobis in digressionibus uti vel historico nonnunquam nitore, dum in his, de quibus erit quaestio, meminerimus, non athletarum toris, sed militum lacertis opus esse; nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere.
Nevertheless, it is permitted for us in digressions to use sometimes even historical luster, provided that in those matters which will be under dispute we remember that there is need not for the muscles of athletes, but for the arms of soldiers, and that that varicolored dress which Demetrius of Phalerum was said to use does not suit well the dust of the forum.
§10.1.34est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem maximus, sed non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne omnia testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex vetustate diligenter sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea sola criminibus odii et gratiae vacant.
There is also another use of history, and indeed a very great one, but not relevant to the present place: that derived from the knowledge of facts and precedents, with which the orator must be equipped above all, so that he does not expect all testimonies from the litigant, but may take many from antiquity, carefully known to himself—which are all the more powerful because they alone are free from suspicion of hatred and partiality.
§10.1.35A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda, vitio factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis parte cesserunt.
But that we have to seek many things from the reading of philosophers has been caused by the fault of orators, who indeed yielded to them the best part of their own work.
nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus, iisque quae sint istis contraria, et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et argumentantur acriter Stoici, et altercationibus atque interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime Socratici praeparant.
For both about what is just, honorable, and expedient, and those things which are contrary to them, and especially about divine matters do the Stoics speak and argue sharply, and the Socratics prepare the future orator in the best way by altercations and interrogations.
§10.1.36sed his quoque adhibendum est simile iudicium, ut etiam cum in rebus versemur iisdem, non tamen eandem esse condicionem sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii, praeceptorum et periculorum.
But to these also a similar judgment must be applied, so that even when we are engaged in the same subjects, we may nevertheless know that the condition of lawsuits and disputations, of the forum and the lecture-hall, of precepts and perils, is not the same.
§10.1.37credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in legendo iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint legendi, quae in auctore quoque praecipua virtus.
I believe that most people will demand, since we judge there to be so much utility in reading, that we should also add this to our work: who are to be read, and what is the chief virtue in each author.
sed persequi singulos infiniti fuerit operis.
But to go through them individually would be a work of infinite labor.
§10.1.38quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius tot milibus versuum de Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis suae, quibuscum vivebat, exceptis Caesare atque Marcello, silentium egerit, quis erit modus, si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes?
Indeed, since in his Brutus Marcus Tullius speaks in so many thousands of lines about Roman orators alone, and yet kept silence about all those of his own age with whom he lived, except for Caesar and Marcellus, what limit will there be if we go through both those and those who came after them, and all the Greeks?
§10.1.39fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima, quae est apud Livium in epistola ad filium scripta, legendos Demosthenem atque Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et Ciceroni simillimus.
Therefore, that safest brevity was the best, which is found in Livy in a letter written to his son, that Demosthenes and Cicero should be read, and then others in so far as each is most similar to Demosthenes and Cicero.
§10.1.40non est tamen dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa.
Nevertheless, the sum of my own judgment must not be concealed.
paucos enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem pertulerunt existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus adlaturus sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte carentibus, plurimum fateatur adiutum.
For I think that few, or rather scarcely any, of those who have survived from antiquity can be found who will not bring some utility to those who apply judgment, since Cicero himself confesses that he was greatly helped even by those most ancient authors, who were indeed talented but lacked art.
§10.1.41nec multo aliud de novis sentio.
Nor do I feel much differently about the moderns.
quotus enim quisque inveniri tam demens potest, qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? qui si quis est, intra primos statim versus deprehendetur et citius nos dimittet, quam ut eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet experimentum.
For how few can be found so foolish as to have hoped for the memory of posterity without at least some minimal confidence in some part of their work? If there is any such person, he will be detected immediately within his first few lines and will dismiss us too quickly for his trial to cost us a great loss of time.
§10.1.42sed non quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet, protinus ad phrasin, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.
But not everything that belongs to some branch of knowledge is straightway adapted to the expression of which we are speaking.
verum antequam de singulis, pauca in universum de varietate opinionum dicenda sunt.
However, before speaking of individuals, a few things must be said in general about the variety of opinions.
§10.1.43nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant neque in ullis aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum arbitrantur; alios recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant.
For some think that only the ancients are to be read, and believe that in no others is there natural eloquence and a strength worthy of men; while others are delighted by this recent licentiousness and luxury, and by everything composed for the pleasure of the unskilful multitude.