I. There are said to be classes of orators as there are of poets.  But it is not so; for of poets there are a great many divisions; for of tragic, comic, epic, lyric, and also of dithyrambic poetry, which has been more cultivated by the Latins, each kind is very different from the rest.  Therefore in tragedy anything comic is a defect, and in comedy anything tragic is out of place.  And in the other kinds of poetry each has its own appropriate note, and a tone well known to those who understand the subject.  But if any one were to enumerate many classes of orators, describing some as grand, and dignified, and copious, others as thin, or subtle, or concise, and others as something between the two and in the middle as it were, he would be saying something of the men, but very little of the matter.  For as to the matter, we seek to know what is the best; but as to the man, we state what is the real case.  Therefore if any one likes, he has a right to call Ennius a consummate epic poet, and Pacuvius an excellent tragic poet, and Caecilius perhaps a perfect comic poet.  But I do not divide the orator as to class in this way.  For I am seeking a perfect one.  And of perfection there is only one kind; and those who fall short of it do not differ in kind, as Attius does from Terentius; but they are of the same kind, only of unequal merit.  For he is the best orator who by speaking both teaches, and delights, and moves the minds of his hearers.  To teach them is his duty, to delight them is creditable to him, to move them is indispensable.  It must be granted that one person succeeds better in this than another; but that is not a difference of kind but of degree.  Perfection is one thing; that is next to it which is most like it; from which consideration it is evident that that which is most unlike perfection is the worst.

II.  For, since eloquence consists of words and sentences, we must endeavour, by speaking in a pure and correct manner, that is to say in good Latin, to attain an elegance of expression with words appropriate and metaphorical.  As to the appropriate words, selecting those which are most suitable; and when indulging in metaphor, studying to preserve a proper resemblance, and to be modest in our use of foreign terms.  But of sentences, there are as many different kinds as I have said there are of panegyrics.  For if teaching, we want shrewd sentences; if aiming at giving pleasure, we want musical ones; if at exciting the feelings, dignified ones.  But there is a certain arrangement of words which produces both harmony and smoothness; and different sentiments have different arrangements suitable to them, and an order naturally calculated to prove their point; but of all those things memory is the foundation, (just as a building has a foundation,) and action is the light.  The man, then, in whom all these qualities are found in the highest perfection, will be the most skilful orator; he in whom they exist in a moderate degree will be a mediocre orator:  he in whom they are found to the slightest extent will be the most inferior sort of orator.  All these, indeed, will be called orators, just as bad painters are still called painters; not differing from one another in kind, but in ability.  So there is no orator who would not like to resemble Demosthenes; but Menander did not want to be like Homer, for his style was different.