MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO. 239 



the opposite kind of diction deficient in taste and purity. In Greek, 

 indeed, the words fall, as it were, naturally, into a distinct and har- 

 monious order; and, from the exuberant richness of the materials, 

 less is left 'to the ingenuity of the artist. But the Latin language is 

 comparatively weak, scanty, and unmusical, and requires considerable 

 skill and management to render it expressive and graceful, Simplicity 

 in Latin is scarcely separable from baldness ; and justly as Terence is 

 celebrated for chaste and unadorned diction, yet, even he, compared 

 with Attic writers, is flat and heavy. 1 Again, the perfection of 

 strength is clearness united to brevity ; but to this combination Latin 

 is utterly unequal. From the vagueness and uncertainty of meaning 

 which characterises its separate words, to be perspicuous it must be 

 full. What Livy, and much more Tacitus, have gained in energy, 

 they have lost in perspicuity and elegance ; the correspondence of 

 Brutus with Cicero is forcible indeed, but harsh and abrupt. Latin, 

 in short, is not a philosophical language, not a language in which a 

 deep thinker is likely to express himself with purity or neatness. 

 " Qui a Latinis exiget illam gratiam sermonis Attici," says Quintilian, 

 " det mihi in eloquendo eandem jucunditatem, et parem copiam. Quod 

 si negatum est, sententias aptabimus iis vocibus quas habemus, nee 

 rerum nimiam tenuitatem, ut non dicam pinguioribus, fortioribus certe 

 verbis miscebimus, ne virtus utraque pereat ipsa confusione. Nam 

 quo minus adjuvat sermo, rerum inventione pugnandum est. Serisus 

 sublimes variique eruantur. Permovendi omnes affectus erunt, oratio 

 translationum nitore illuminanda. Non possumus esse tarn graciles ? 

 simus fortiores. Subtilitate vincimur ? valeamus pondere. Proprietas 

 penes illos est certior? copia vincamus." 2 This is the very plan on 

 which Cicero has proceeded. He had to deal with a language barren 

 and dissonant ; his good sense enabled him to perceive what could be 

 done, and what it was in vain to attempt; and happily his talents 

 answered precisely to the purpose required. Terence and Lucretius 

 had cultivated simplicity ; Cotta, Brutus, and Calvus had attempted 

 strength ; but Cicero rather made a language than a style ; yet not so 

 much by the invention as by the combination of words. Some terms, 

 indeed, his philosophical subjects obliged him to coin ;* but his great 



1 Quint, x. 1. 



2 [" Let him who demands from Latin writers that peculiar charm of the Attic 

 style grant me the same sweetness of expression, and equal copiousness of language. 

 If this, as it is, is denied us, then we must express ourselves in such words as we 

 have, and not introduce confusion, by endeavouring to discuss subtile arguments in 

 language which, not to call it too heavy, is yet too strong ; lest both excellences 

 (perspicuity and elegance) perish by their very commixture. For the less our lan- 

 guage will assist us, the more we must labour to effect by the invention of matter^ 

 Let us aim at extracting from our subject sentiments of sublimity and variety. Let 

 us appeal to every feeling, and adorn our style with metaphorical embellishments. 

 We cannot attain the elegance of the Greeks; let us exceed them in vigour. Do 

 they excel us in subtilty ? let us surpass them in force. Are they superior in 

 exactness ? let us outstrip them in copiousness of detail." Editor. ~\ 



3 De Fin. iii. 1 and 4 ; Lucull. 6 ; Plutarch, in Vita. 



