I have made these
preliminary remarks to show that any credit reflected on the age by the fame
and renown of these orators is common property, and is in fact more closely
connected with us than with Servius Galba or Caius Carbo, and others whom we
may rightly call "ancients." These indeed are rough, unpolished, awkward,
and ungainly, and I wish that your favourite Calvus or Caelius or even
Cicero had in no respect imitated them. I really mean now to deal with the
subject more boldly and confidently, but I must first observe that the types
and varieties of eloquence change with the age. Thus Caius Gracchus compared
with the elder
Cato is full and copious; Crassus compared with Gracchus is
polished and ornate;
Cicero compared with either is lucid, graceful, and
lofty; Corvinus again is softer and sweeter and more finished in his phrases
than
Cicero. I do not ask
DISTINCTION OF EPOCHS
ARBITRARY |
who is the best speaker. Meantime I am content to have
proved that eloquence has more than one face, and even in those whom you
call ancients several varieties are to be discovered. Nor does it at once
follow that difference implies inferiority. It is the fault of envious human
nature that the old is always the object of praise, the present of contempt.
Can we doubt that there were found critics who admired Appius Caecus more
than
Cato? We know that even
Cicero was not without his disparagers, who
thought him inflated, turgid, not concise enough, but unduly diffuse and
luxuriant, in short anything but Attic. You have read of course the letters
of Calvus and
Brutus to
Cicero, and from these it is easy to perceive that
in
Cicero's opinion Calvus was bloodless and attenuated,
Brutus slovenly and
lax.
Cicero again was slightingly spoken of by Calvus as loose and
nerveless, and by
Brutus, to use his own words, as "languid and effeminate."
If you ask me, I think they all said what was true. But I shall come to them
separately after a while; now I have to deal with them collectively.