He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words.
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words.
Tacitus
883, A.
D.
130.
His oratorical character, and
that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not
unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he
says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he
wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the
good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on
the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater
magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void
of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their
popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not
knowing them. _Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam
existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum
hominum in omni genere prudentiam Græcis anteferre. Antonius autem
probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omninò didicisse
nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter
contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Græcos videretur. _ Cicero _De Orat. _
lib. ii. cap. 1.
[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he
had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to
posterity among the most celebrated orators.
He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some
degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable
name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with
grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed
his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate;
and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy
with which his meaning was conveyed. _Julio Secundo, si longior
contigisset ætas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros
foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, cæteris virtutibus suis,
quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et
sæpius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Cæterum interceptus
quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum
dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quæ assumpta sunt, proprietas;
tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia. _ Quintil. lib.
x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman
orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The
Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men
who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have
been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth
recording.
Section III.
that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not
unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he
says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he
wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the
good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on
the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater
magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void
of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their
popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not
knowing them. _Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam
existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum
hominum in omni genere prudentiam Græcis anteferre. Antonius autem
probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omninò didicisse
nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter
contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Græcos videretur. _ Cicero _De Orat. _
lib. ii. cap. 1.
[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he
had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to
posterity among the most celebrated orators.
He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some
degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable
name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with
grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed
his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate;
and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy
with which his meaning was conveyed. _Julio Secundo, si longior
contigisset ætas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros
foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, cæteris virtutibus suis,
quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et
sæpius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Cæterum interceptus
quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum
dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quæ assumpta sunt, proprietas;
tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia. _ Quintil. lib.
x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman
orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The
Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men
who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have
been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth
recording.
Section III.
