No More Learning

Aristippus, he says,
placed his _summum bonum_ in bodily pleasure, and therefore could be
no friend to the strict regimen of the accomplished orator. Much less
could Pyrrho be of use, since he doubted whether there was any such
thing in existence as the judges before whom the cause must be
pleaded. To him the party accused, and the senate, were alike
non-entities. _Neque vero Aristippus, summum in voluptate corpora
bonum ponens, ad hunc nos laborem adhortetur. Pyrrho quidem, quas in
hoc opere partes habere potest? cui judices esse apud quos verba
faciat, et reum pro quo loquatur, et senatum, in quo sit dicenda
sententia, non liquebat. _ Quintil. lib. xii. cap. 2.


Section XXXII.

[a] We are told by Quintilian, that Demosthenes, the great orator of
Greece, was an assiduous hearer of Plato: _Constat Demosthenem,
principem omnium Græciæ oratorum, dedisse operam Platoni. _ Lib. xii.
cap. 2. And Cicero expressly says, that, if he might venture to call
himself an orator, he was made so, not by the manufacture of the
schools of rhetoric, but in the walks of the Academy. _Fateor me
oratorem, si modo sim, aut etiam quicumque sim, non ex rhetorum
officinis, sed ex Academiæ spatiis extitisse. Ad Brutum Orator_, s.
12.


Section XXXIII.

[a] The ancient critics made a wide distinction, between a mere
facility of speech, and what they called the oratorical faculty. This
is fully explained by Asinius Pollio, who said of himself, that by
pleading at first with propriety, he succeeded so far as to be often
called upon; by pleading frequently, he began to lose the propriety
with which he set out; and the reason was, by constant practice he
acquired rashness, not a just confidence in himself; a fluent
facility, not the true faculty of an orator. _Commodè agenda factum
est, ut sæpe agerem; sæpe agenda, ut minus commodè; quia scilicet
nimia facilitas magis quam facultas, nec fiducia, sed temeritas,
paratur. _ Quintil. lib. xii.


Section XXXIV.

[a] There is in this place a trifling mistake, either in Messala, the
speaker, or in the copyists. Crassus was born A. U. C. 614. See s.
xviii. note [f]. Papirius Carbo, the person accused, was consul A. U. C.
634, and the prosecution was in the following year, when Crassus
expressly says, that he was then only one and twenty. _Quippe qui
omnium maturrimè ad publicas causas accesserim, annosque natus UNUM ET
VIGINTI, nobilissimum hominem et eloquentissimum in judicium vocârim. _
Cicero, _De Orat. _ lib. iii. s. 74. Pliny the consul was another
instance of early pleading. He says himself, that he began his career
in the forum at the age of nineteen, and, after long practice, he
could only see the functions of an orator as it were in a mist.
_Undevicessimo ætatis anno dicere in foro cœpi, et nunc demum, quid
præstare debeat orator, adhuc tamen per caliginem video. _ Lib. v.
epist. 8. Quintilian relates of Cæsar, Calvus, and Pollio, that they
all three appeared at the bar, long before they arrived at their
quæstorian age, which was seven and twenty. _Calvus, Cæsar, Pollio,
multum ante quæstoriam omnes ætatem gravissima judicia susceperunt. _
Quintilian, lib. xii. cap. 6.


Section XXXV.

[a] Lipsius, in his note on this passage, says, that he once thought
the word _scena_ in the text ought to be changed to _schola_; but he
afterwards saw his mistake. The place of fictitious declamation and
spurious eloquence, where the teachers played a ridiculous part, was
properly called a theatrical scene.

[b] Lucius Licinius Crassus and Domitius Ænobarbus were censors A. U. C.
662. Crassus himself informs us, that, for two years together, a new
race of men, called Rhetoricians, or masters of eloquence, kept open
schools at Rome, till he thought fit to exercise his censorian
authority, and by an edict to banish the whole tribe from the city of
Rome; and this, he says, he did, not, as some people suggested, to
hinder the talents of youth from being cultivated, but to save their
genius from being corrupted, and the young mind from being confirmed
in shameless ignorance. Audacity was all the new masters could teach;
and this being the only thing to be acquired on that stage of
impudence, he thought it the duty of a Roman censor to crush the
mischief in the bud. _Latini (sic diis placet) hoc biennio magistri
dicendi extiterunt; quos ego censor edicto meo sustuleram; non quo (ut
nescio quos dicere aiebant) acui ingenia adolescentium nollem, sed,
contra, ingenia obtundi nolui, corroborari impudentiam. Hos vero novos
magistros nihil intelligebam posse docere, nisi ut auderent. Hoc cum
unum traderetur, et cum impudentiæ ludus esset, putavi esse censoris,
ne longius id serperet, providere. _ _De Orat. _ lib. iii. s. 93 and 94.
Aulus Gellius mentions a former expulsion of the rhetoricians, by a
decree of the senate, in the consulship of Fannius Strabo and Valerius
Messala, A. U. C. 593. He gives the words of the decree, and also of the
edict, by which the teachers were banished by Crassus, several years
after. See _A. Gellius, Noctes Atticæ_, lib. xv. cap. 2. See also
Suetonius, _De Claris Rhet. _ s. 1.

[c] Seneca has left a collection of declamations in the two kinds,
viz. the persuasive, and controversial. See his SUASORIÆ, and
CONTROVERSIÆ. In the first class, the questions are, Whether Alexander
should attempt the Indian ocean? Whether he should enter Babylon, when
the augurs denounced impending danger? Whether Cicero, to appease the
wrath of Marc Antony, should burn all his works? The subjects in the
second class are more complex. A priestess was taken prisoner by a
band of pirates, and sold to slavery. The purchaser abandoned her to
prostitution. Her person being rendered venal, a soldier made his
offers of gallantry. She desired the price of her prostituted charms;
but the military man resolved to use force and insolence, and she
stabbed him in the attempt. For this she was prosecuted, and
acquitted. She then desired to be restored to her rank of priestess:
that point was decided against her. These instances may serve as a
specimen of the trifling declamations, into which such a man as Seneca
was betrayed by his own imagination. Petronius has described the
literary farce of the schools. Young men, he says, were there trained
up in folly, neither seeing nor hearing any thing that could be of
use in the business of life. They were taught to think of nothing, but
pirates loaded with fetters on the sea-shore; tyrants by their edicts
commanding sons to murder their fathers; the responses of oracles
demanding a sacrifice of three or more virgins, in order to abate an
epidemic pestilence. All these discourses, void of common sense, are
tricked out in the gaudy colours of exquisite eloquence, soft, sweet,
and seasoned to the palate. In this ridiculous boy's-play the scholars
trifle away their time; they are laughed at in the forum, and still
worse, what they learn in their youth they do not forget at an
advanced age. _Ego adolescentulos existimo in scholis stultissimos
fieri, quia nihil ex iis, quæ in usu habemus, aut audiunt aut vident;
sed piratas cum catenis in littore stantes, et tyrannos edicta
scribentes, quibus imperent filiis, ut patrum suorum capita præcidant;
sed responsa in pestilentiâ data, ut virgines tres aut plures
immolentur; sed mellitos verborum globos, et omnia dicta factaque
quasi papavere et sesamo sparsa. Nunc pueri in scholis ludunt; juvenes
ridentur in foro; et, quod utroque turpius est, quod quisque perperam
discit, in senectute confiteri non vult. _ Petron. _in Satyrico_, cap.
3 and 4.

[d] Here unfortunately begins a chasm in the original. The words are,
_Cum ad veros judices ventum est, * * * * rem cogitare * * * * nihil
humile, nihil abjectum eloqui poterat. _ This is unintelligible. What
follows from the words _magna eloquentia sicut flamma_, palpably
belongs to Maternus, who is the last speaker in the Dialogue. The
whole of what Secundus said is lost. The expedient has been, to divide
the sequel between Secundus and Maternus; but that is mere patch-work.
We are told in the first section of the Dialogue, that the several
persons present spoke their minds, each in his turn assigning
different but probable causes, and at times agreeing on the same.
There can, therefore, be no doubt but Secundus took his turn in the
course of the enquiry. Of all the editors of Tacitus, Brotier is the
only one who has adverted to this circumstance. To supply the loss, as
well as it can now be done by conjecture, that ingenious commentator
has added a Supplement, with so much taste, and such a degree of
probability, that it has been judged proper to adopt what he has
added. The thread of the discourse will be unbroken, and the reader,
it is hoped, will prefer a regular continuity to a mere vacant space.
The inverted comma in the margin of the text [transcriber's note: not
used, but numbered with decimal rather than Roman numerals] will mark
the supplemental part, as far as section 36, where the original
proceeds to the end of the Dialogue. The sections of the Supplement
will be marked, for the sake of distinction, with figures, instead of
the Roman numeral letters.


SUPPLEMENT.

Section 1.

[a] Petronius says, you may as well expect that the person, who is for
ever shut up in a kitchen, should be sweet and fresh, as that young
men, trained up in such absurd and ridiculous interludes, should
improve their taste or judgement. _Qui inter hæc nutriuntur, non magis
sapere possunt, quam bene olere, qui in culiná habitant. _ Petronius,
_in Satyrico_, s. 2.


Section 2.

[a] The means by which an orator is nourished, formed, and raised to
eminence, are here enumerated. These are the requisites, that lead to
that distinguished eloquence, which is finely described by Petronius,
when he says, a sublime oration, but sublime within due bounds, is
neither deformed with affectation, nor turgid in any part, but,
depending on truth and simplicity, rises to unaffected grandeur.
_Grandis, et, ut ita dicam, pudica oratio, non est maculosa, nec
turgida, sed naturali pulchritudine exsurgit. _ Petronius, _in
Satyrico_, s. 2.


Section 3.

[a] Maternus engaged for himself and Secundus, that they would
communicate their sentiments: see s. 16. In consequence of that
promise, Messala now calls upon them both. They have already declared
themselves admirers of ancient eloquence. It now remains to be known,
whether they agree with Messala as to the cause that occasioned a
rapid decline: or whether they can produce new reasons of their own.


Section 4.

[a] Secundus proceeds to give his opinion. This is managed by Brotier
with great art and judgement, since it is evident in the original text
that Maternus closed the debate. According to what is said in the
introduction to the Dialogue, Secundus agrees with Messala upon most
points, but still assigns different, but probable reasons. A
revolution, he says, happened in literature; a new taste prevailed,
and the worst models were deemed worthy of imitation. The emotions of
the heart were suppressed. Men could no longer yield to the impulse of
genius. They endeavoured to embellish their composition with novelty;
they sparkled with wit, and amused their readers with point,
antithesis, and forced conceits. They fell into the case of the man,
who, according to Martial, was ingenious, but not eloquent:

Cum sexaginta numeret Casselius annos;
Ingeniosus homo est: quando disertus erit?
Lib. vii. epig. 8.

[b] Enough, perhaps, has been already said in the notes, concerning
the teachers of rhetoric; but it will not be useless to cite one
passage more from Petronius, who in literature, as well as convivial
pleasure, may be allowed to be _arbiter elegantiarum_. The
rhetoricians, he says, came originally from Asia; they were, however,
neither known to Pindar, and the nine lyric poets, nor to Plato, or
Demosthenes. They arrived at Athens in evil hour, and imported with
them that enormous frothy loquacity, which at once, like a pestilence,
blasted all the powers of genius, and established the rules of corrupt
eloquence. _Nondum umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat, cum Pindarus
novemque lyrici Homericis versibus canere non timuerunt. Certe neque
Platona, neque Demosthenem, ad hoc genus exercitationis accessisse
video. Nuper ventosa isthæc et enormis loquacitas Athenas ex Asia
commigravit, animosque juvenum ad magna surgentes veluti pestilenti
quodam sidere afflavit; simulque corruptæ eloquentiæ regula stetit et
obtinuit. _ Petron. _Satyricon_, s. 2.


Section 5.

[a] When the public taste was vitiated, and to _elevate and surprise_,
as Bayes says, was the _new way of writing_, Seneca is, with good
reason, ranked in the class of ingenious, but affected authors. Menage
says, if all the books in the world were in the fire, there is not
one, whom he would so eagerly snatch from the flames as Plutarch. That
author never tires him; he reads him often, and always finds new
beauties. He cannot say the same of Seneca; not but there are
admirable passages in his works, but when brought to the test they
lose their apparent beauty by a close examination. Seneca serves to be
quoted in the warmth of conversation, but is not of equal value in the
closet. Whatever be the subject, he wishes to shine, and, by
consequence, his thoughts are too refined, and often _false.
Menagiana_, tom. ii. p. 1.


Section 6.

[a] This charge against Seneca is by no means new. Quintilian was his
contemporary; he saw and heard the man, and, in less than twenty
years after his death, pronounced judgement against him. In the
conclusion of the first chapter of his tenth book, after having given
an account of the Greek and Roman authors, he says, he reserved Seneca
for the last place, because, having always endeavoured to counteract
the influence of a bad taste, he was supposed to be influenced by
motives of personal enmity. But the case was otherwise. He saw that
Seneca was the favourite of the times, and, to check the torrent that
threatened the ruin of all true eloquence, he exerted his best efforts
to diffuse a sounder judgement. He did not wish that Seneca should be
laid aside: but he could not in silence see him preferred to the
writers of the Augustan age, whom that writer endeavoured to
depreciate, conscious that, having chosen a different style, he could
not hope to please the taste of those who were charmed with the
authors of a former day. But Seneca was still in fashion; his
partisans continued to admire, though it cannot be said that they
imitated him. He fell short of the ancients, and they were still more
beneath their model. Since they were content to copy, it were to be
wished that they had been able to vie with him. He pleased by his
defects, and the herd of imitators chose the worst. They acquired a
vicious manner, and flattered themselves that they resembled their
master. But the truth is, they disgraced him. Seneca, it must be
allowed, had many great and excellent qualities; a lively imagination,
vast erudition, and extensive knowledge. He frequently employed others
to make researches for him, and was often deceived. He embraced all
subjects; in his philosophy, not always profound, but a keen censor of
the manners, and on moral subjects truly admirable. He has brilliant
passages, and beautiful sentiments; but the expression is in a false
taste, the more dangerous, as he abounds with delightful vices. You
would have wished that he had written with his own imagination, and
the judgement of others. To sum up his character; had he known how to
rate little things, had he been above the petty ambition of always
shining, had he not been fond of himself, had he not weakened his
force by minute and dazzling sentences, he would have gained, not the
admiration of boys, but the suffrage of the judicious. At present he
may be read with safety by those who have made acquaintance with
better models. His works afford the fairest opportunity of
distinguishing the beauties of fine writing from their opposite vices.
He has much to be approved, and even admired: but a just selection is
necessary, and it is to be regretted that he did not choose for
himself.
Such was the judgement of Quintilian: the learned reader
will, perhaps, be glad to have the whole passage in the author's
words, rather than be referred to another book. _Ex industriâ Senecam,
in omni genere eloquentiæ versatum, distuli, propter vulgatam falso de
me opinionem, quâ damnare eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditus.
Quod, accidit mihi, dum corruptum, et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi
genus revocare ad severiora judicia contendo. Tum autem solus hic fere
in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quem non equidem omnino conabar
excutere, sed potioribus præferri non sinebam, quos ille non
destiterat incessere, cum, diversi sibi conscius generis, placere se
in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent, diffideret. Amabant autem
eum magis, quàm imitabantur; tantumque ab illo defluebant, quantum
ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum, pares, aut saltem
proximos, illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia, et ad ea
se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quæ poterat. Deinde cum se jactaret
eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cujus et multæ alioqui et magnæ
virtutes fuerunt; ingenium facile et copiosum; plurimum studii; et
multarum rerum cognitio, in quâ tamen aliquando ab iis, quibus
inquirenda quædam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractavit etiam omnem ferè
studiorum materiam; In philosophiâ parum diligens, egregius tamen
vitiorum insectator. Multa in eo claræque sententiæ; multa etiam morum
gratiâ legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo
perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis. Velles eum suo ingenio
dixisse, alieno judicio. Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum
concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset; si rerum pondera minutissimis
sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quàm puerorum
amore comprobaretur. Verùm sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore
genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest
utrimque judicium. Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam
admiranda sunt; eligere modo curæ sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. _
Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in
the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand
corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this
Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind
with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of
France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how
to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained
metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the
blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his
own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has
been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general
depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance,
traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the
age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young
fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette:
_Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos_; he adds, that such affected
finery is not the true ornament of a man. _Non est ornamentum virile,
concinnitas. _ And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was
sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something
new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth
and dignified simplicity. The marvellous was with him better than the
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of
the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes
to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the
corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's _Belles Lettres_, vol.
i. _sur le Gout_. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given
an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that
work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of
eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the
matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for
wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the
false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was,
undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.
His fault was, exuberance. _Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere_,
says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's
subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he
bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is
witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to
and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and
little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.
With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and
manner infected every branch of literature. The tribe of imitators had
not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite
of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the
natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He
tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever
introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad
writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste
goes round from one to another. _Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub
quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. _
Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing
himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age.
_Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. _ He adopted
the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons,
the Abbé Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and
Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that,
during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never
revived.


Section 7.

[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in
some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time,
that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging
the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a
sufficient apology for his love of money.

[b] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of
every liberal art. Even that monster Domitian was versed in polite
learning, and by fits and starts capable of intense application: but
we read in Tacitus, that his studies and his pretended love of poetry
served as a cloak to hide his real character. See _History_, b. iv. s.
86.

[c] Pliny the younger describes the young men of his time rushing
forward into the forum without knowledge or decency. He was told, he
says, by persons advanced in years, that, according to ancient usage,
no young man, even of the first distinction, was allowed to appear at
the bar, unless he was introduced by one of consular dignity. But, in
his time, all fences of respect and decency were thrown down. Young
men scorned to be introduced; they forced their way, and took
possession of the forum without any kind of recommendation. _At
hercule ante memoriam meam (majores natu ita solent dicere), ne
nobilissimis quidem adolescentibus locus erat, nisi aliquo consulari
producente; tantâ veneratione pulcherrimum opus celebrabatur. Nunc
refractis pudoris et reverentiæ claustris, omnia patent omnibus. Nec
inducuntur, sed irrumpunt. _ Plin. lib. ii. epist. 14.


Section 8.

[a] This want of decorum before the tribunals of justice would appear
incredible, were it not well attested by the younger Pliny. The
audience, he says, was suited to the orators. Mercenary wretches were
hired to applaud in the courts, where they were treated at the
expence of the advocate, as openly as if they were in a
banqueting-room. _Sequuntur auditores actoribus similes, conducti et
redempti mancipes. Convenitur in mediâ basilicâ, ubi tam palam
sportulæ quam in triclinio dantur. _ Plin. lib, ii. epist. 14. He adds
in the same epistle, LARGIUS LICINIUS first introduced this custom,
merely that he might procure an audience. _Primus hunc audiendi morem
induxit Largius Licinius, hactenus tamen ut auditores corrogaret. _

[b] This anecdote is also related by Pliny, in the following manner:
Quintilian, his preceptor, told him that one day, when he attended
Domitius Afer in a cause before the _centumviri_, a sudden and
outrageous noise was heard from the adjoining court. Afer made a
pause; the disturbance ceased, and he resumed the thread of his
discourse. He was interrupted a second and a third time. He asked, who
was the advocate that occasioned so much uproar? Being told, that
Licinius was the person, he addressed himself to the court in these
words: _Centumvirs! all true eloquence is now at an end. Ex
Quintiliano, præceptore meo, audisse memini: narrabat ille, Assectabar
Domitium Afrum, cum apud centumviros diceret graviter et lentè (hoc
enim illi actionis genus erat), audiit ex proximo immodicum
insolitumque clamorem; admiratus reticuit; ubi silentium factum est,
repetit quod abruperat; iterum clamor, iterum reticuit; et post
silentium, cœpit idem tertio. Novissimè quis diceret quæsivit.
Responsum est, Licinius. Tum intermissâ causâ_, CENTUMVIRI, _inquit_,
HOC ARTIFICIUM PERIIT. Lib. ii. ep. 14. Domitius Afer has been
mentioned, s. xiii. note [d]. To what is there said of him may be
added a fact related by Quintilian, who says that Afer, when old and
superannuated, still continued at the bar, exhibiting the decay of
genius, and every day diminishing that high reputation which he once
possessed. Hence men said of him, he had rather _decline_ than
_desist_. _Malle eum deficere, quam desinere. _ Quint. lib. xii. cap.
11.

[c] The men who applauded for hire, went from court to court to bellow
forth their venal approbation. Pliny says, No longer ago than
yesterday, two of my _nomenclators_, both about the age of seventeen,
were bribed to play the part of critics. Their pay was about three
_denarii_: that at present is the price of eloquence. _Ex judicio in
judicium pari mercede transitur. Heri duo nomenclatores mei (habent
sane ætatem eorum, qui nuper togas sumpserunt), ternis denariis ad
laudandum trahebantur. Tanti constat, ut sis disertus. _ Lib. ii.
epist. 14.

[d] The whole account of the trade of puffing is related in the
Dialogue, on the authority of Pliny, who tells us that those wretched
sycophants had two nick-names; one in Greek, [Greek: Sophokleis], and
the other in Latin, LAUDICÆNI; the former from _sophos_, the usual
exclamation of applause, as in Martial: _Quid tam grande sophos clamat
tibi turba, togata_; the Latin word importing _parasites_ who sold
their praise for a supper. _Inde jam non inurbanè [Greek: Sophokleis]
vocantur; iisdem nomen Latinum impositum est_, LAUDICÆNI. _Et tamen
crescit indies fœditas utrâque linguâ notata. _ Lib. ii. epist. 14.


Section 10.

[a] Pliny tells us, that he employed much of his time in pleading
causes before the _centumviri_; but he grew ashamed of the business,
when he found those courts attended by a set of bold young men, and
not by lawyers of any note or consequence. But still the service of
his friends, and his time of life, induced him to continue his
practice for some while longer, lest he should seem, by quitting it
abruptly, to fly from fatigue, not from the indecorum of the place. He
contrived however to appear but seldom, in order to withdraw himself
by degrees. _Nos tamen adhuc et utilitas amicorum, et ratio ætatis,
moratur ac retinet. Veremur enim ne fortè non has indignitates
reliquisse, sed laborem fugisse videamur. Sumus tamen solito rariores,
quod initium est gradatim desinendi. _ Lib. ii. epist. 14.


Section 11.

[a] The person here distinguished from the rest of the rhetoricians,
is the celebrated Quintilian, of whose elegant taste and superior
judgement it were superfluous to say a word. Martial has given his
character in two lines:--

Quintiliane, vagæ moderator summe juventæ,
Gloria Romanæ, Quintiliane, togæ.
Lib. ii. epig. 90.

It is generally supposed that he was a native of _Calaguris_ (now
_Calahorra_), a city in Spain, rendered famous by the martial spirit
of Sertorius, who there stood a siege against Pompey. Vossius,
however, thinks that he was born a Roman; and GEDOYN, the elegant
translator mentioned section 6. note [a], accedes to that opinion,
since Martial does not claim him as his countryman. The same writer
says, that it is still uncertain when Quintilian was born, and when he
died; but, after a diligent enquiry, he thinks it probable that the
great critic was born towards the latter end of Tiberius; and, of
course, when Domitius Afer died in the reign of Nero, A. U. C. 812, A. D.
59, that he was then two and twenty. His Institutions of an Orator
were written in the latter end of Domitian, when Quintilian, as he
himself says, was far advanced in years. The time of his death is no
where mentioned, but it probably was under Nerva or Trajan. It must
not be dissembled, that this admirable author was not exempt from the
epidemic vice of the age in which he lived. He flattered Domitian, and
that strain of adulation is the only blemish in his work. The love of
literature may be said to have been his ruling passion; but, in his
estimation, learning and genius are subordinate to honour, truth, and
virtue.


Section 12.

[a] Maternus, without contradicting Messala or Secundus, gives his
opinion, viz. that the decline of eloquence, however other causes
might conspire, was chiefly occasioned by the ruin of a free
constitution. To this he adds another observation, which seems to be
founded in truth, as we find that, since the revival of letters, Spain
has produced one CERVANTES; France, one MOLIERE; England, one
SHAKSPEARE, and one MILTON.


Section 13.

[a] Examples of short, abrupt, and even sublime speeches out of the
mouth of Barbarians, might, if the occasion required it, be produced
in great abundance. Mr. Locke has observed, that the humours of a
people may be learned from their usage of words. Seneca has said the
same, and, in epistle cxiv. has explained himself on the subject with
acute reasoning and beautiful illustration. The whole letter merits
the attention of the judicious critic. The remainder of this, and the
whole of the following section, serve to enforce the proposition of
the speaker, viz. that Roman eloquence died with public liberty. The
Supplement ends here. The original text is resumed in the next
section, and proceeds unbroken to the end of the Dialogue.


Section XXXVI.

[a] When great and powerful eloquence is compared to a flame, that
must be supported by fresh materials, it is evident that the sentence
is a continuation, not the opening of a new argument. It has been
observed, and it will not be improper to repeat, that the two former
speakers (Messala and Secundus) having stated, according to their way
of thinking, the causes of corrupt eloquence, Maternus, as was
promised in the outset of the Dialogue, now proceeds to give another
reason, and, perhaps, the strongest of all; namely, the alteration of
the government from the old republican form to the absolute sway of a
single ruler.

[b] The colonies, the provinces, and the nations that submitted to the
Roman arms, had their patrons in the capital, whom they courted with
assiduity. It was this mark of distinction that raised the ambitious
citizen to the first honours in the state. To have a number of
clients, as well at home as in the most important colonies, was the
unremitting desire, the study, and constant labour of all who aimed at
pre-eminence; insomuch that, in the time of the old republic, the men
who wished to be distinguished patrons, impoverished, and often ruined
their families, by their profusion and magnificence. They paid court
to the common people, to the provinces, and states in alliance with
Rome; and, in their turn, they received the homage of their clients.
See _Annals_, b. iii. s. 55.

[c] We read in Quintilian, that oral testimony, and depositions signed
by the witnesses, were both in use in his time. Written evidence, he
observes, was easily combated; because the witness who chose to speak
in the presence of a few who signed his attestation, might be guilty
of a violation of truth with greater confidence; and besides, not
being cited to speak, his being a volunteer in the cause was a
circumstance against him, since it shewed that he acted with ill-will
to the opposite party. With regard to the witness who gives his
testimony in open court, the advocate has more upon his hands: he must
press him with questions, and in a set speech observe upon his
evidence. He must also support his own witnesses, and, therefore, must
draw up two lines of battle. _Maximus patronis circa testimonia sudor
est. Ea dicuntur aut per tabulas, aut a præsentibus. Simplicior contra
tabulas pugna. Nam et minus obstitisse videtur pudor inter paucos
signatores, et pro diffidentiâ premitur absentia. Tacitâ præterea
quâdam significatione refragatur his omnibus, quod nemo per tabulas
dat testimonium, nisi suâ voluntate; quo ipso non esse amicum ei se,
contra quem dicit, fatetur. Cum præsentibus verò ingens dimicatio est:
ideoque velut duplici contra eos, proque his, acie confligitur,
actionum et interrogationum.