M. CORNELIUS FRONTO
times and such charm as the Latin tongue still retained unimpaired, rather than of opulent diction. After Augustus a few relics only, withered already and decaying, were left over for the notorious Tiberius. But his successors without a break to Vespasian were all of such a kind as to make us no less ashamed of their speaking than disgusted with their characters and sorry for their acts.[1]
7. But should one say yes, for they had not been taught, why, then, did they bear rule? That they might exercise it, I presume, either by gestures, like actors, or with signs like the dumb, or through an interpreter like foreigners. Which of them could address people or Senate in a speech of his own? which draw up an edict or a rescript in his own words? They ruled but as the mouthpiece of others, like men in the phrensy of delirium: they were as pipes that are only vocal with another's breath.
8. Now sovranty is a word that connotes not only power but also speech, since the exercise of sovranty practically consists in bidding and forbidding. If he did not praise good actions, if he did not blame evil doings, if he did not exhort to virtue, if he did not warn off from vice, a ruler would belie his name and be called sovran to no purpose . . . . to foist in a changeling was accounted abominable, to publish a false bulletin a military crime, to give false witness a capital offence . . . .
9 . . . . Hadrian's speech affects a spurious pretence of ancient eloquence[2] . . . . Osiris
- ↑ But Josephus (Hist. of Jews, xix. 3, 5) and Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 5) speak highly of the eloquence of Gaius (i.e. Caligula).
- ↑ For Hadrian's rococo tastes see Spart. Hadr. xvi. 5.
