known as the Asiatic style. It was more ornate and artificial than that of Athens, which by way of distinction was known as the Attic style.

At Rome public speaking was extensively practised from an early time. The flourishing period of Roman oratory lay between the end of the second Punic war and the establishment of the Empire. This period of almost two hundred years may be conveniently viewed in three epochs. In the first, the most prominent figure was that of Cato the Censor, whose unpolished but effective oratory reflected his uncompromising sturdiness of character. Among the younger contemporaries of Cato was Gaius Laelius, whose speaking showed more refinement. At this time Greek culture was exerting more and more influence upon Roman life, but in oratory apparently there was no study of Greek models. The second epoch extends from the time of the Gracchi to that of the eminent orators Marcus Antonius, grandfather of Mark Antony, and L. Licinius Crassus, who died B. C. 91. The Greek orators were now studied, and Greek teachers of rhetoric were freely employed; but there was as yet little open acknowledgment of indebtedness to them. The two eminent names of the third period are Cicero and Hortensius. In oratory, as in other fields of literature and art, Greek models were now supreme, being taken as standards of excellence. The question was no longer whether Greece should be the instructor of Rome in eloquence; it was rather, which style of Greek oratory should be followed, the Attic or the Asiatic. This question each Roman settled for himself, some going so far as to confine their study to a single Greek orator as model. Greek teachers of rhetoric abounded everywhere. Hortensius preferred the florid exuberance of the Asiatic style; Cicero's taste inclined rather to the compact simplicity of the Attic, to which, however, influenced no doubt by Asiatic models,

in his own speaking he added a richer and more rounded expression.

In Cicero's time the theory of oratory had long since been worked out with so great completeness that modern literary criticism has added nothing of importance to it. The matter of oratory was reckoned of three kinds: demonstrative, employed in praising or censuring some one; deliberative, used with reference to some measure, or proposal, either in the way of advocacy or of opposition; and juridical, employed in the courts, in accusation or defence. Five qualities were considered essential to an orator. These were invention, the power to gather facts and arguments; disposition, the ability to arrange matter in the proper or most effective order; expression, a choice of words suitable to the thought; memory, a firm grasp of matter, words, and arrangement; and delivery, a perfect command of the voice, features, and gesticulation. A typical oration was said to comprise six parts, as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION (exordium), designed to win the favorable attention of the audience; often considered of two kinds :

a. The Opening (principium), preliminary remarks. b. The Ingratiating (insinuatio), intended by a skilful use of language to remove prejudices and put the audience into a receptive mood.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE (narratio), a summary of the facts leading up to the point at issue.

III. DIVISION (partitio, or divisio), indicating the treatment of the theme proposed, or the point to be proved.

IV. PROOF, or affirmative argument (confirmatio), setting forth the arguments on the speaker's side of the case.

V. REBUTTAL (refutatio, or reprehensio), refuting the arguments of the opposite side.

VI. PERORATION, or CONCLUSION (peroratio, or conclusio), bringing the address to an impressive close; frequently divided into three parts:

a. Summary (enumeratio), a brief recapitulation of the speaker's points.

b. Outburst (indignatio), a burst of anger, designed to excite the indignation of the audience against the opposite side.

c. Appeal (conquestio), an appeal to the sympathies of the audience.

According to modern ideas of literary analysis, these six divisions may generally be more conveniently grouped in three, thus: :

I. INTRODUCTION:

Exordium.

Narratio.

Partitio.

› II. DISCUSSION:

Confirmatio.

Refutatio.

III. CONCLUSION:

Peroratio or conclusio.

This arrangement will be followed in presenting the outline of the eight orations in this edition.

Careful rules were laid down by rhetoricians for the handling of each of the divisions. We are not to suppose that orators held rigidly to the outline given; yet it was regarded as the norm, or type, from which wide deviation was exceptional. The subjects most likely to lead away from it were those which inspired invective. Thus, the orations against Catiline show marked divergence from the typical structure. On the other hand, speeches of a more quiet tone, like that for Pompey's commission, and the majority of those made at the bar, were in this respect more nearly regular.

Cicero possessed all the qualities characteristic of a true

orator.

He was endowed with great activity and versatility