“Therefore _prosopopœiæ_ seem to me far the most difficult, since they add to the other tasks of deliberative _declamatio_ (_suasoria_) the difficulty of characterization (_persona_). For the same arguments must be urged in one way by Cæsar, in another by Cicero, in another by Cato. But the practise is most useful, either as a twofold task or as of the greatest interest to poets also or to future historians. To orators it is even necessary. For the many orations composed by Greeks or Latins to be delivered by others had to adapt what was to be said to the speaker’s habit of life. Did Cicero think in the same way, or assume the same character, when he wrote for Pompey as when he wrote for Ampius and others? Did he not, discerning the fortune, the rank, the deeds of each of them, express the very image of every one to whom he was giving voice, so that they seemed to speak beyond themselves, indeed, but still as themselves? Nor is a speech less faulty for deviating from the person than from the case to which it should be adapted. Admirably, therefore, Lysias, in what he wrote for the untrained, is seen to have been faithful to their actual style. “But _declamatores_[9] especially have to consider what befits each character; for the forensics (_controversiæ_) that they speak as advocates do are very few. Usually they become sons or fathers, rich, old, harsh, mild, avaricious, even superstitious, timid, or mocking, so that even comedy actors hardly conceive more ways of life on the stage than they on the platform. All these [exercises] may be regarded as _prosopopœiæ_. I have brought them under the head of _suasoriæ_ because the only difference is in [the assumption of] character, although the exercise is sometimes extended also to _controversiæ_.”[10] III. viii. 49-52. (3) _Status_