1
THE NEXT point is, to decide on what we should employ ourselves when we write. It would be a superfluous labor, indeed, to detail what subjects there are for writing, and what should be studied first, or second, and so on in succession; for this has been done in my first book, in which I prescribed the order for the studies of boys, and in my second, where I specified those of the more advanced. What is now to be considered, is whence copiousness and facility of expression may be derived.
2
To translate Greek into Latin our old orators thought to be a very excellent exercise. Lucius Crassus, in the well-known books of Cicero’s De Oratore,1 says that he often practiced it; and Cicero himself, speaking in his own person, very frequently recommends it, and has even published books of Plato and Xenophon translated in that kind of exercise. It was also approved by Messala; and there are extant several versions of speeches made by him, so that he even rivaled the oration of Hyperides for Phryne in delicacy of style, a quality
3
most difficult of attainment to Romans. The object of such exercise is evident, for the Greek authors excel in copiousness of matter, and have introduced a vast deal in art into the study of eloquence; thus in translating them we may use the very best words, for all that we use may be our own. As to figures, by which language is principally ornamented, we may be under the necessity of inventing a great number and variety of them, because the Roman tongue differs greatly from that of the Greeks.2
4
But the conversion of Latin writing into other words will also be of great service to us. About the utility of turning poetry into prose, I suppose that no one has any doubt; and this is the only kind of exercise that Sulpicius is said to have used; for its sublimity may elevate our style, and the boldness of the expressions adopted by poetic license does not preclude the orator’s efforts to express the same thoughts in the exactness of prose. He may even add to those thoughts oratorical vigor, supply what has been omitted, and give compactness to that which is diffuse, since I would not have our paraphrase to be a mere interpretation, but an effort to vie with and rival our original in the expression of the same thoughts.
5
I therefore differ in opinion from those who disapprove of paraphrasing Latin orations on the pretext that, as the best words and phrases have been already used, whatever we express in another form must of necessity be expressed worse. But for this allegation there is no sufficient ground, for we must not despair of the possibility of finding something better than what has been said; nor has nature made language so meager and so poor that we cannot speak well on any subject except in one way; unless we suppose, indeed, that the gestures of the actor can give a variety of turns to the same words, but that the power of eloquence is so much inferior that when a thing has been once said, nothing can be said
6
after it to the same purpose. But let it be granted that what we conceive is neither better than our original nor equal to it; yet it must be allowed, at the same time, that there is a
7
possibility of coming near to it. Do not we ourselves at times speak twice or oftener, and sometimes a succession of sentences, on the same subject, and are we to suppose that though we can contend with ourselves we cannot contend with others? If a thought could be expressed well only in one way, it would be but right to suppose that the path of excellence has been shut against us by some of our predecessors; but in reality there are still innumerable modes of saying a thing,
and many roads leading to the same point. Conciseness has its charms, and so has copiousness; there is one kind of beauty in metaphorical, another in simple expressions; direct expressions become one subject, and such as are varied by figures another. In addition, the difficulty of the exercise is most serviceable. Are not our greatest authors by this means studied more carefully? For in this way we do not run over what we have written in a careless mode of reading, but consider every
9
individual portion, and look, for necessity, thoroughly into their matter and learn how much merit they possess from the very fact that we cannot succeed in imitating them.
Nor will it be of advantage to us only to alter the language of others; it will be serviceable also to vary our own in a number
10
of different forms, taking certain thoughts for the purpose, and putting them, as harmoniously as possible, into several shapes, just as different figures are molded out of the same wax. But I consider that the greatest facility in composition is acquired by exercise in the simplest subjects; for in treating of a multiplicity of persons, causes, occasions, places, sayings, and actions, our real weakness in style may readily escape notice amidst so many subjects which present themselves on all sides, and on some of which we may readily lay
11
hold. But the great proof of power is to expand what is naturally contracted, to amplify what is little, to give variety to things that are similar, and attraction to such as are obvious, and to say with effect much on a little.3
1 De oratore I.xxxiv.
2 Quintilian discusses the “figures” at some length in Books IX and X of the Institutio under the rubric of style, as is common in Roman rhetorical theory. His treatment of the figures is one of the most complete in ancient rhetoric since he includes various viewpoints about individual devices and makes frequent reference to the Greek origins of many of them.
3 Quintilian concludes this chapter with some general remarks on practice in oratory (sections 12–23).