I give now a passage from one of Cato's speeches:1

Scio solere plerisque hominibus rebus secundis atque prolixis atque prosperis animum excellere, atque superbiam atque ferociam augescere atque crescere. Quo mihi nunc magnae curae est, quod haec res tam secunde processit, ne quid in consulendo advorsi eveniat, quod nostras secundas res confutet, neve haec laetitia nimis luxuriose eveniat. Advorsae res edomant, et docent quid opus siet facto, secundae res laetitia transvorsum trudere solent a recte consulendo atque intellegendo. Quo maiore opere dico suadeoque, uti haec res aliquot dies proferatur dum ex tanto gaudio in potestatem nostram redeamus.

Atque ego quidem arbitror, Rhodiensis Persen noluisse nos ita depugnare, uti depugnatum est, neque regem Persen vinci. Sed non Rhodienses modo id noluere, sed multos populos atque multas nationes idem noluisse arbitror. Atque haud scio an partim eorum fuerint, qui non nostrae contumeliae causa id noluerint evenire, sed enim id metuere, ne, si nemo esset homo quem vereremur, quidquid luberet faceremus. Ne sub solo imperio nostro in servitute nostra essent, libertatis suae causa in ea sententia fuisse arbitror. Atque Rhodienses tamen Persen publice numquam adiuvere. Cogitate, quanto nos inter nos privatim cautius facimus. Nam unus quisque nostrum, si quis advorsus rem suam quid fieri arbitratur, summa vi contra nititur ne advorsus eam fiat: quod illi tamen perpessi.

Finally I cite a passage from the Origines:2

Dii immortales tribuno militum fortunam ex virtute eius dedere. Nam ita evenit: cum saucius multifariam ibi factus esset, tamen volnus capiti nullum evenit, eumque inter mortuos defetigatum volneribus atque quod sanguen eis defluxerat cognovere. Eum sustulere, isque convaluit, saepeque postilla operam rei publicae fortem atque strenuam perhibuit, illoque facto,

This paragraph, from Cato's famous speech against declaring war on the Rhodians, is preserved by Gellius vi. 3. 14-16. Duff, A Literary History of Rome, p. 257, describes the passage of which it is a part as the "best, as it is the best-known example of Cato's style. . . . ." Of its style Duff says (ibid.): "This . . . . is luminous and forcible, but it lacks form and comeliness. Synonyms are piled on each other to secure emphasis. There is a want of variety both in expression and sound. There is no studied rhythm, and no horror of a jingle at the end of clauses. In respect to art, we are still a long way from Cicero."

2 See Gellius iii. 7. 19. In § 1 of this chapter Gellius says: "Pulchrum, dii boni, facinus Graecarumque facundiarum magniloquentia condignum M. Cato libris Originum de Q. Caedicio tribuno militum scriptum reliquit." Then in 2 he says, "Id profecto est ad hanc ferme sententiam." Then follows, in 3-17, a vivid account of the exploit. In 18 Gellius says: "Sed quod illi tribuno, duci militum quadringentorum, divinitus in eo proelio usus venit, non iam nostris, sed ipsius Catonis verbis subiecimus." Then comes 19, cited in full above. Gellius' words in 2 and 18 ought to imply that for the form of the narrative in 3-17 he is himself largely responsible. It is likely, though, that he here reproduced much of Cato: one word he definitely marks (6) as cited from Cato (verruca=locus editus asperque). In ii. 29 Gellius professes to be giving his own prose version of a metrical passage in Ennius' Saturae. But metrical tags and archaisms abound in Gellius' version (see my discussion of this point in AJP, XXXII, 28–31); we see that in reality, in ii. 29 at least, Gellius is using, in large part, Ennius' words and phrases.

quod illos milites subduxit, exercitum ceterum servavit. Sed idem benefactum quo in loco ponas nimium interest. Leonides Laco, qui simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius virtutes omnis Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclutissumae decoravere monumentis: signis, statuis, elogiis, historiis, aliisque rebus gratissimum id factum habuere. At tribuno militum parva laus pro factis relicta, qui idem fecerat atque rem servaverat.

Of the speech Pro Rhodiensibus, Gellius (vi. 3. 53) said: "Ea omnia distinctius numerosiusque fortassean dici potuerint, fortius atque vividius potuisse dici non videntur." Nettleship (p. 97) characterizes the style as clear, forcible, and luminous, but as lacking harmony, beauty, and rhythm. There are few connecting particles; those employed are of the simplest sort. The order of the words is at times entirely without art, as in the sentence "secundae res. . . . trudere solent a recte consulendo atque intellegendo." This word-order, I may note, is that of plebeian Latin in general. There are jingles, at the ends of the clauses, like the jingles of Plautus and Ennius. Finally, words more or less kindred in sense are heaped up. One may well see in this phenomenon a movement toward the copia of Cicero (see below, p. 146). Clearness, however, marks both passages: there is no mistaking Cato's meaning (see above, p. 139, note 3, p. 140, note 1). The brevity of early Latin prose writing is seldom, I think, marred by obscurity. There is no evidence of striving to attain the periodic sentence.

It is time now to return to Cicero's account of Cato. Of Cato as a historian he says little in the Brutus, naturally, since that work is a treatise de claris oratoribus. The one sentence he does write in this connection is important (66): "Iam vero Origines eius quem. florem aut quod lumen eloquentiae non habent!" This high praise must, beyond doubt, be discounted in the light of what is said below (pp. 140-41) of Cicero's comments on Cato's oratory, and in view of Atticus' discussion, in De legibus i. 5-9, of Roman historical writing down to Cicero's own day (see above, p. 139).

Of Cato's oratory Cicero has something to say in each of his three great treatises on oratory. In De oratore i. 171 he makes Crassus say of him: "Nonne . . . . eloquentia tanta fuit, quantam illa tempora atque illa aetas in hac civitate ferre maximam potuit et iuris civilis omnium peritissimus?"

In the Brutus (63–71), Cicero compares Cato to Lysias. In the very number of their speeches they are alike; their speeches too are alike, since they are acuti, elegantes, faceti, breves. Lysias has certos sui studiosos, Cato is not read at all. orator

Still, though And yet as an

Quis illo gravior in laudando, acerbior in vituperando, in sententiis argutior, in docendo edisserendoque subtilior? Refertae sunt orationes amplius centum quinquaginta . . . . et verbis et rebus inlustribus. Licet ex his elegant ea quae notatione et laude digna sint: omnes oratoriae virtutes in eis reperientur. Iam vero Origines eius quem florem aut quod lumen eloquentiae non habent! Amatores huic desunt, sicuti . . . . et Philisto Syracusio et ipsi Thucydidi. Nam ut horum concisis sententiis, interdum etiam non satis apertis cum brevitate tum nimio acumine, officit Theopompus elatione atque altitudine orationis suae . . . sic Catonis luminibus obstruxit haec posteriorum quasi exaggerata altius oratio. Sed ea in nostris inscitia est, quod hi ipsi, qui in Graecis antiquitate delectantur eaque subtilitate, quam Atticam appellant, hanc in Catone ne noverunt quidem. Hyperidae volunt esse et Lysiae. Laudo: sed cur nolunt Catones? Attico genere dicendi se gaudere dicunt. Sapienter id quidem atque utinam imitarentur nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem! Gratum est tamen, quod volunt: cur igitur Lysias et Hyperides amatur, cum penitus ignoretur Cato ?1

To us this praise of Cato is astonishing. If Cicero is right, why have we so little now of Cato's speeches? Why have we no

1 In De re publica ii. 1 Cicero makes the younger Africanus speak warmly of Cato's oratory: "erat in homine ... modus in dicendo et gravitate mixtus lepos et summum vel discendi studium vel docendi et orationi vita congruens." In Tusc. disp. i. 3 Cicero is much less ardent: "Attamen oratorem celeriter complexi sumus, nec eum primo eruditum, aptum tamen ad dicendum, post autem eruditum. Nam Galbam, Africanum, Laelium doctos fuisse traditum est, studiosum autem eum qui eis aetate anteibat, Catonem. . . .

* Norden (pp. 164–69) thinks highly of Cato as one of the most original of Latin writers. The style of the De agri cultura he characterizes as "ganz roh," naturally, because Cato is talking to the farmer for practical purposes, and so he speaks in the tone which the farmer, when he came to market, heard ringing in the laws. The style of Cato's history, says Norden, is much more developed, "kurz, derb, kraftvoll." To his speeches, continues Norden, Cato owed much of his fame in later years. In these we see clearly the results of Greek influence. ". . . . jedesmal trifft er den Nagel auf den Kopf; .... er sagt meist mit einem Wort mehr als Cicero mit einem Satz. ..."

Norden sees also in the fragments of Cato's orations striving for periodicity and certain graces. I may note that above (p. 142) I hazarded the suggestion that Cato sought to work toward the copia of Cicero. If there is any merit in that suggestion, it is in sharp opposition to Norden's overenthusiastic praise of Cato's brevity.

Norden omits, be it noted, entirely most of the passages in which Cicero writes about Cato; most extraordinary is his failure to mention the long passages in the Brutus which deal with Cato.

speech of his complete? Our judgment finds confirmation in what Atticus says in the Brutus 292 ff.:

Equidem in quibusdam risum vix tenebam cum Attico Lysiae Catonem nostrum comparabas singularem virum . . . . sed oratorem? sed etiam Lysiae similem? . . . . Bella ironia, si iocaremur; . . . . orationes autem eius, ut illis temporibus, valde laudo, significant enim quandam formam ingeni, sed admodum impolitam et plane rudem. Origines vero cum omnibus oratoris laudibus refertas diceres et Catonem cum Philisto et Thucydide comparares, Brutone te id censebas an mihi probaturum?

It will appear presently that in these words Atticus gives the opinion current in his day with respect to the earlier Roman orators.1

Cicero meets Atticus' attack by insisting that he is perfectly serious (297 ff.), but that he has not time to discuss the theme now. He assures him that Cato possessed every excellence that an orator should have, "nisi eorum pigmentorum quae inventa nondum erant florem et colorem." In Orator 150 ff., while he is discussing hiatus, Cicero makes clear his opinion that orationes illae ipsae horridulae Catonis were stricter in this matter, as were the early Roman orators in general, than the Greeks had been.

It will be noticed that, in his first discussion of Cato, in the De oratore, Cicero speaks of Cato with no great warmth; his last utterance, that in the Orator, has even less warmth. Why, then, the extraordinary fervor of his remarks in the Brutus about Cato?

The Brutus and the Orator were both published in 45. Cicero's career as an orator was to all intents and purposes over. Even if we forget the fact that Caesar was then supreme, so that no orator had proper opportunity for the display of his talents, we must remember that, as a senex, Cicero was feeling the burden of years (see the Cato Maior 1-2) and was facing the thought that before long he must leave the future of Roman oratory to others. With these feelings he fights, twice in this one year, the battle for what he regards as the one hope for Roman oratory."

1 Cf. Quintilian ii. 5. 21; Tacitus Dialogus 18.

Cf. Norden, pp. 216-21.

The Brutus is a verbal picture gallery of the heroes of Roman oratory. The Orator is a pen picture of the ideal orator. As he wrote these works, Cicero was keenly aware that the principles which had guided and determined his own oratory were being vigorously challenged. In both works Cicero was seeking to win Brutus to his side in the great struggle between the Attic and the Asiatic schools of Roman oratory. In Orator 110 he clearly indicates that he thinks of Brutus as his successor.

In Orator 76-101, Cicero insists that the ideal orator must show complete mastery of the three genera dicendi. The perfect orator, however, will display his genius best by harmoniously combining the three (100-101). Such a happy combination he had himself, he insists, achieved. If, however, we read 109 in close connection with 107-8, in which he had cited, apologetically, examples of his own iuvenilis redundantia, we see clearly that Cicero had been severely criticized for his tendency toward the Asiatic style (compare again Hendrickson, AJP, XXVI, 273). In the Brutus and the Orator, Cicero sought to wean Brutus from his leaning to an (overstrict) Atticism, and to induce him to accept as his own the oratorical creed of Cicero (see below, pp. 146-48).

The distinction between the Asiatic style and the Attic style is too well known to need extended discussion here; for the Asiatic style see, e.g., Brutus 325-27 (an account of the style of Hortensius); Norden, pp. 131-52, 186ff., 218-22, 251-70. For the Attic style see Brutus 283-91; Norden, pp. 149-52, 219-21, 251-70.

Since Cicero was assailing, mainly, the Atticists, we must quote here part of Brutus 284-91:

Tum Brutus Atticum se, inquit, Calvus noster dici oratorem volebat: inde erat ista exilitas, quam ille de industria consequebatur. Dicebat, inquam, ita, sed et ipse errabat et alios etiam errare cogebat. . . . . Sin autem ieiunitatem et siccitatem et inopiam, dummodo sit polita, dum urbana, dum elegans, in Attico genere ponit, hoc recte dumtaxat; sed quia sunt in Atticis alia aliis meliora, videat ne ignoret et gradus et dissimilitudines et vim et varietatem Atticorum.

1 Cf. Hendrickson, AJP, XXVI (1905), 272-73; Teuffel, §119. 4.

2 See Hendrickson, ibid., pp. 249-90; C. N. Jackson, Harvard Studies, XXV (1914), 117-37; M. S. Dimsdale, A History of Latin Literature, pp. 175-77. The three styles, Asiatic, Attic, and Rhodian, are well described by Quintilian xii. 10. 16-26.