Letter 301.1

[The opening of the letter is lost.] ... to a temperament that runs counter to it. Would you order me to struggle against nature, against the current, as the saying goes? What if someone were to demand that Phidias should fashion playful trifles, or Canachus the images of the gods; that Calamis should produce Etruscan work, or Polyclitus produce Tyrrhenian? What if he were to order Parrhasius to paint in many colors, or Apelles in a single color; Nealces to paint grand subjects, or Protogenes minute ones; Nicias dark pictures, or Dionysius brilliant ones; Euphranor wanton subjects, or Pausias ... [text damaged]? Among the poets, again, who does not know how Lucilius is slender, Albucius dry, Lucretius sublime, Pacuvius middling, Accius uneven, Ennius of many forms? History too has been written by Sallust with structure, by Pictor without arrangement, by Claudius with charm, by Antias without grace, by Sisenna at length, by Cato with words yoked many together, by Caelius with words one at a time. In addressing the assembly, moreover, Cato is hostile, Gracchus turbulent, Tullius [Cicero] full of glory; and in the courts that same Cato rages, Cicero triumphs, Gracchus storms, Calvus brawls. But perhaps you would think little of these examples? What of this: have not the philosophers themselves used a different kind of discourse, each his own? Zeno was the plainest at teaching, Socrates the most ensnaring at refuting, Diogenes the readiest at reproaching, Heraclitus obscure-wrapping everything in mystery; Pythagoras wondrous-sanctioning everything with secret signs; Clitomachus of two minds-calling everything into doubt. What, then, would these very wisest of men do, if each were drawn away from his own manner and method? Socrates if he might not refute, Zeno if he might not dispute, Diogenes if he might not rebuke; if Pythagoras might sanction nothing, if Heraclitus might hide nothing, if Clitomachus might leave nothing in doubt? But so that we may not linger over this first part longer than the measure of a letter allows, it is time to consider first what you think about words. Tell me this, if you please: do you judge that even if more elegant words should come to me of their own accord, without any toil or effort on my part, they must nevertheless be spurned and rejected? Or, while you forbid me to track down elegant words with toil and effort, do you yet bid those same words, if they come of their own accord, unbidden and uninvited by me, to be welcomed in-like Menelaus to the feast? [The allusion is to Homer, where Menelaus comes to the banquet uninvited.] For to forbid that would be downright harsh and inhuman: just as if, from a host who receives you with Falernian wine-the surplus of his own estate's produce, left over at his house-you should demand Cretan or Saguntine wine, which, confound it, he would have to seek out elsewhere and buy. What ... [a long stretch of the text is lost] ... they would surely not point these things out, if ... [further loss] ... What of those within our own memory-Euphrates, Dio, Timocrates, Athenodotus? What of their teacher Musonius? Were they not endowed with the highest eloquence, and no less renowned for the glory of their wisdom than for that of their eloquence? Or do you ... [text damaged] ... used words on purpose ... [further loss] ... he would not even have preferred a cloak begrimed with filth to one white and washed clean and pure. Unless perhaps you suppose that he was made lame on purpose too, and was born a slave on purpose. What is it, then? So readily did he ... [two pages are missing].

To my Lord. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What you enjoin may perhaps be right, but it is too late: nor indeed does age also permit all that reason demands . . . . Would you make a swan in its dying song rival the cawing of crows? . . . . though it is out of keeping with my genius, would you advise me to strive against nature and swim, as they say, against the stream? What, if one called on Phidias to produce sportive works or Canachus images of Gods, or Calamis delicate statuary or Polycletus rough handiwork? What if one bade Parrhasius paint rainbow hues or Apelles monochromes, or Nealces grand canvasses or Protogenes miniature ones, or Nicias sombre pictures or Dionysius brilliant ones, or Euphranor subjects all licence or Pausias all austerity? 2. Among poets, who does not know how Lucilius is graceful, Albucius dry, Lucretius sublime, Pacuvius mediocre, Accius unequal, Ennius many-sided? History, too, has been written by Sallust symmetrically by Pictor without method, by Claudius pleasantly by Antias without charm, by Sisenna at length, by Cato with many words abreast by Caelius with words in single harness. In harangue, again, Cato is savage, Gracchus violent, Tully copious, while at the bar Cato rages, Cicero triumphs, Gracchus riots, Calvus quarrels. 3. But perhaps you would make light of these Instances. What? have not philosophers themselves used different styles in their speaking? No one could be fuller in exposition than Zeno, more captious in argument than Socrates, more ready than Diogenes at denunciation; Heraclitus was obscure enough to mystify everything, Pythagoras wonderfully prone to give everything religious sanction with secret symbols, Clitomachus agnostic enough to call everything in question. What, pray, would your wisest of men themselves do, if called away from their own individual habits and principles—Socrates from arguing, Zeno from disputing, Diogenes from finding fault, Pythagoras from sanctioning anything, Heraclitus from wrapping anything in mystery, Clitomachus from calling anything in question? 4. But that we may not dwell on this first part longer than is compatible with the compass of a letter, it is time to consider first what is your view about words. Tell me then, pray, whether in your opinion the choicest words must be disdained and rejected, even if they come to me of their own accord, without any toil and pursuit of mine? or, while forbidding the searching out of choice words with toil and eagerness, do you at the same time bid me receive them like Menelaus at the banquet, if only they come of their own accord, unbidden by me and uninvited? For to forbid that indeed is downright harsh and barbarous, It is as though from a host who welcomes you with Falernian wine, which being produced on his own estate is abundant at home, you should call for Cretan or Saguntine, to be got—bad cess to it!—from elsewhere and paid for. What . . . . Epictetus unconcerned . . . . Socrates . . . . Xenophon . . . . Antisthenes . . . . Aeschines . . . . Plato . . . . Would they then not indicate this, if . . . . What in our own recollection of Euphrates, Dio, Timocrates, Athenodotus? What of their master Musonius? Were they not gifted with a supreme command of words, and famed as much for their eloquence as for their wisdom? 5. Or do you think that Epictetus did not use words of set purpose? . . . . would have preferred even a mantle foul with dirt to one that was white and spotlessly clean. Unless you think perchance that Epictetus became lame too of set purpose and of set purpose was born a slave. What then is it? So easily he . . . . never would have donned voluntary rags of words. Even a slave by accident he was of set purpose born a wise man. But so eloquence was divorced from soundness of feet . . . .

ad Anton. de eloqu. 1 [133 Hout; 2.46 Haines] <Antonino Augusto Fronto.> 1 <...> ingenio discrepanti. Juberesne me niti contra naturam adverso, quod ajunt, flumine? Quid, si quis postularet, ut Phidias ludicra aut Canachus deum simulacra fingerent aut Calamis ut Tyrrhena aut Polycletus Etrusca? Quid si Parrhasium versicolora pingere juberet aut Apellen unicolora aut Nealcen magnifica aut Protogenen minuta aut Nician obscura aut Dionysium inlustria aut lascivia Euphranorem aut Pausiam . . . . . . . . a? 2 In poetis autem quis ignorat, ut gracilis sit Lucilius, Albucius aridus, sublimis Lucretius, medicoris Pacuvius, inaequalis Accius, Ennius multiformis? Historiam quoque scripsere Sallustius structe, Pictor incondite, Claudius lepide, Antias invenuste, Seisenna longinque, verbis Cato multijugis, Coelius singulis. Contionatur autem Cato infeste, Gracchus turbulente, Tullius gloriose; jam in judiciis saevit idem Cato, triumphat Cicero, tumultuantur Gracchus, Calvus rixatur. 3 Sed haec exempla fortasse contemnas? Quid? Philosophi ipsi nonne diverso genere orationis usi sunt? Zeno ad docendum planissimus, Socrates ad coarguendum captiosissimus, Diogenes ad exprobrandum promptissimus, Heraclitus obscurus: involvere omnia, Pythagora mirificus: clandestinis signis sancire omnia, Clitomachus anceps: in dubium vocare omnia. Quidnam igitur agerent isti ipsi sapientissimi viri, si de suo quisque more atque instituto deducerentur? Socrates ne coargueret, Zeno ne disceptaret, Diogenes ne increparet, ne quid Pythagoras sanciret, ne quid Heraclitus absconderet, ne quid Clitomachus ambigeret? 4 Sed ne in prima ista parte diutius, quam epistulae modus postulat, commoremur, tempus de verbis primum, quid censeas, considerare. Dic sodes hoc mihi: Utrumne, temetsi sine ullo labore ac studio meo verba mihi elegantiora ultro occurrerent, spernenda censes ac repudianda an cum labore quidem et studio investigare verba elegantia prohibes, eadem vero, si ultro, si injussu atque invocatu meo venerint, ut Menelaum ad epulas quidem, recipi jubes? Nam istud quidem vetare durum prosus atque inhumanum est: Consimile ut si ab hospite, qui te Falerno accipiat, quod rure ejus natum domi superfiat, Cretense postules vel Saguntinum, quod, malum, foris quaerendum sibi atque mercandum sit. Quid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . haud igitur indicarent ea, si . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quid nostra memoria Euphrates, Dio, Timocrates, Athenodotus? Quid horum magister Musonius? Nonne summa facundia praediti neque minus sapientiae, quam eloquentiae gloria incluti extiterunt? An tu . . . . .s . . . . . . . . . consulto verbis usum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ne pallium quidem sordibus obsitum candido et pure lauto praetulisset. Nisi forte eum tu arbitrare claudum quoque consulto factum et servum consulto natum. Quid igitur est? Tam facile ille [duae paginae desunt]