§10.1.76sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas una tulerit.
Next follows a huge band of orators, as if a single age had produced ten of them at the same time in Athens.
quorum longe princeps Demosthenes ac paene lex orandi fuit; tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias. §10.1.77plenior Aeschines et magis fusus et grandiori similis, quo minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum.
Of these Demosthenes was far the chief, and almost the very rule of speaking; such great force was in him, everything was so dense, so tightened by a kind of sinews, and so free from anything superfluous, and such was his manner of speaking, that you would find neither what is lacking in him nor what is redundant. Aeschines is fuller and more diffuse and like something grander, in proportion as he is less tight; yet he has more flesh, but less muscle.
dulcis in primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis, ut non dixerim utilior, magis par. §10.1.78his aetate Lysias maior, subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis est docere, quaeras perfectius.
Hyperides is singularly sweet and acute, but more suited for smaller causes, though I would not say more useful. Lysias, older than these in age, is subtle and elegant, and if it is enough for an orator to instruct, you could seek nothing more perfect than him.
nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum; puro tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior. §10.1.79Isocrates in diverso genere dicendi nitidus et comptus et palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito; auditoriis enim se, non iudiciis compararat; in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo diligens, ut cura eius reprehendatur. §10.1.80neque ego in his, de quibus sum locutus, has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto, nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos.
For there is nothing empty, nothing far-fetched; yet he is closer to a pure spring than to a great river. Isocrates, in a different style of speaking, polished and adorned, and more suited to the wrestling school than to battle, pursued all the charms of oratory, and not without reason; for he had prepared himself for lecture halls, not for courts; fluent in invention, devoted to what is honorable, and so diligent in composition that his very care is found fault with. Nor indeed do I think that in these of whom I have spoken, these are the only virtues, but that these are the principal ones, nor that the others were not sufficiently great.
quin etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, quanquam is primus inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus est fere ex Atticis, qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero. §10.1.81philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? multum enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus. §10.1.82quid ego commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur et, quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est, in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam.
Nay, I even confess that the famous Demetrius of Phalerum, although he is said to have been the first to decline eloquence, possessed much genius and fluency, worthy of memory even for this, that he is almost the last of the Attics who can be called an orator; whom, however, Cicero prefers to all others in that middle style of speaking. Of the philosophers, from whom Marcus Tullius confesses that he drew the greatest part of his eloquence, who can doubt that Plato is the chief, whether in the acuteness of disputing or in a certain divine and Homeric faculty of speaking? For he rises far above prose, which the Greeks call "pedestrian," so that he seems to me to be inspired not by human genius, but by a kind of oracle of the Delphic god. Why should I commemorate that unaffected sweetness of Xenophon, which, however, no affectation could attain? So that the Graces themselves seem to have molded his speech, and what is the testimony of the ancient comedy concerning Pericles may most justly be transferred to him: that a certain goddess of persuasion sat upon his lips.
quid reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam? §10.1.83quid Aristotelem? quem dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem.
What of the elegance of the rest of the Socratics? What of Aristotle? Whom I doubt whether I should think more famous for his knowledge of things, or the abundance of his writings, or the sweetness of his style, or the acuteness of his discoveries, or the variety of his works.
nam in Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus, ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur. §10.1.84minus indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres; sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen acuti magis quam, id quod sane non adfectaverunt, oratione magnifici. §10.1.85idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est.
For in Theophrastus that brilliance of language is so divine, that he is said to have even derived his name from it. The ancient Stoics indulged less in eloquence; but as they recommended what is honorable, so they were extremely powerful in collecting and proving what they had established, being, however, acute in substance rather than magnificent in language, which indeed they did not affect. The same order must be pursued by us also through the Roman authors.
itaque ut apud illos Homerus sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie proximus. §10.1.86utar enim verbis iisdem, quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi; qui mihi interroganti, quem Homero crederet maxime accedere, Secundus, inquit, est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio. et hercule ut illi naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae et diligentiae vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum, et quantum eminentibus vincimur, fortasse aequalitate pensamus. §10.1.87ceteri omnes longe sequentur.
Therefore, as Homer was among them, so among us Virgil will have given the most auspicious beginning, without doubt the closest of all Greek and our poets of that genre. For I will use the very same words which, as a young man, I received from Domitius Afer; who, to my questioning whom he believed most approached Homer, said: "Virgil is second, yet closer to the first than to the third." And indeed, though we yield to that heavenly and immortal genius, yet there is all the more care and diligence in this one, for the very reason that he had to labor more; and as much as we are surpassed in eminent passages, we perhaps make up for it by equality. All the others will follow far behind.
nam Macer et Lucretius legendi quidem, sed non ut phrasin, id est, corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in sua quisque materia sed alter humilis, alter difficilis.
For Macer and Lucretius are indeed to be read, but not so as to form style, that is, the body of eloquence; elegant each in his own material, but the one is low, the other difficult.
Atacinus Varro in iis, per quae nomen est adsecutus, interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.
Varro of Atax, in those works through which he attained his reputation, is an interpreter of another's work, not indeed to be despised, but of little abundance for increasing the faculty of speaking.