Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my
eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic,
and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present
age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence,
the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would
now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times.
eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic,
and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present
age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence,
the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would
now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times.
Tacitus
Arrogance supplied the place of
talents.
8. To oppose the torrent, that bore down every thing, the danger of
losing all fair and honest fame was the only circumstance that could
afford a ray of hope. But even that slender fence was soon removed by
the arts of [a] Largius Licinius. He was the first that opened a new
road to ambition. He intrigued for fame, and filled the benches with
an audience suborned to applaud his declamations. He had his circle
round him, and shouts of approbation followed. It was upon that
occasion that Domitius Afer [b] emphatically said, Eloquence is now at
the last gasp. It had, indeed, at that time shewn manifest symptoms of
decay, but its total ruin may be dated from the introduction of a
mercenary band [c] to flatter and applaud. If we except a chosen few,
whose superior genius has not as yet been seduced from truth and
nature, the rest are followed by their partisans, like actors on the
stage, subsisting altogether on the bought suffrages of mean and
prostitute hirelings. Nor is this sordid traffic carried on with
secrecy: we see the bargain made in the face of the court; the bribe
is distributed with as little ceremony as if they were in a private
party at the orator's own house. Having sold their voices, this venal
crew rush forward from one tribunal to another, the distributors of
fame, and the sole judges of literary merit. The practice is, no
doubt, disgraceful. To brand it with infamy, two new terms have been
invented [d], one in the Greek language, importing the venders of
praise, and the other in the Latin idiom, signifying the parasites who
sell their applause for a supper. But sarcastic expressions have not
been able to cure the mischief: the applauders by profession have
taken courage, and the name, which was intended as a stroke of
ridicule, is now become an honourable appellation.
9. This infamous practice rages at present with increasing violence.
The party no longer consists of freeborn citizens; our very slaves are
hired. Even before they arrive at full age, we see them distributing
the rewards of eloquence. Without attending to what is said, and
without sense enough to understand, they are sure to crowd the courts
of justice, whenever a raw young man, stung with the love of fame, but
without talents to deserve it, obtrudes himself in the character of an
advocate. The hall resounds with acclamations, or rather with a kind
of bellowing; for I know not by what term to express that savage
uproar, which would disgrace a theatre.
Upon the whole, when I consider these infamous practices, which have
brought so much dishonour upon a liberal profession, I am far from
wondering that you, Maternus, judged it time to sound your retreat.
When you could no longer attend with honour, you did well, my friend,
to devote yourself entirely to the muses. And now, since you are to
close the debate, permit me to request, that, besides unfolding the
causes of corrupt eloquence, you will fairly tell us, whether you
entertain any hopes of better times, and, if you do, by what means a
reformation may be accomplished.
10. It is true [a], said Maternus, that seeing the forum deluged by an
inundation of vices, I was glad, as my friend expressed it, to sound
my retreat. I saw corruption rushing on with hasty strides, too
shameful to be defended, and too powerful to be resisted. And yet,
though urged by all those motives, I should hardly have renounced the
business of the bar, if the bias of my nature had not inclined me to
other studies. I balanced, however, for some time. It was, at first,
my fixed resolution to stand to the last a poor remnant of that
integrity and manly eloquence, which still lingered at the bar, and
shewed some signs of life. It was my intention to emulate, not,
indeed, with equal powers, but certainly with equal firmness, the
bright models of ancient times, and, in that course of practice, to
defend the fortunes, the dignity, and the innocence of my
fellow-citizens. But the strong impulse of inclination was not to be
resisted. I laid down my arms, and deserted to the safe and tranquil
camp of the muses. But though a deserter, I have not quite forgot the
service in which I was enlisted. I honour the professors of real
eloquence, and that sentiment, I hope, will be always warm in my
heart.
11. In my solitary walks, and moments of meditation, it often happens,
that I fall into a train of thinking on the flourishing state of
ancient eloquence, and the abject condition to which it is reduced in
modern times. The result of my reflections I shall venture to unfold,
not with a spirit of controversy, nor yet dogmatically to enforce my
own opinion. I may differ in some points, but from a collision of
sentiments it is possible that some new light may be struck out. My
friend Aper will, therefore, excuse me, if I do not, with him, prefer
the false glitter of the moderns to the solid vigour of ancient
genius. At the same time, it is not my intention to disparage his
friends. Messala too, whom you, Secundus, have closely followed, will
forgive me, if I do not, in every thing, coincide with his opinion.
The vices of the forum, which you have both, as becomes men of
integrity, attacked with vehemence, will not have me for their
apologist. But still I may be allowed to ask, have not you been too
much exasperated against the rhetoricians?
I will not say in their favour, that I think them equal to the task of
reviving the honours of eloquence; but I have known among them, men of
unblemished morals, of regular discipline, great erudition, and
talents every way fit to form the minds of youth to a just taste for
science and the persuasive arts. In this number one in particular [a]
has lately shone forth with superior lustre. From his abilities, all
that is in the power of man may fairly be expected. A genius like his
would have been the ornament of better times. Posterity will admire
and honour him. And yet I would not have Secundus amuse himself with
ill-grounded hopes: neither the learning of that most excellent man,
nor the industry of such as may follow him, will be able to promote
the interests of Eloquence, or to establish her former glory. It is a
lost cause. Before the vices, which have been so ably described, had
spread a general infection, all true oratory was at an end. The
revolutions in our government, and the violence of the times, began
the mischief, and, in the end, gave the fatal blow.
12. Nor are we to wonder at this event. In the course of human affairs
there is no stability, nothing secure or permanent. It is with our
minds as with our bodies: the latter, as soon as they have attained
their full growth, and seem to flourish in the vigour of health,
begin, from that moment, to feel the gradual approaches of decay. Our
intellectual powers proceed in the same manner; they gain strength by
degrees, they arrive at maturity, and, when they can no longer
improve, they languish, droop, and fade away. This is the law of
nature, to which every age, and every nation, of which we have any
historical records, have been obliged to submit. There is besides
another general law, hard perhaps, but wonderfully ordained, and it is
this: nature, whose operations are always simple and uniform, never
suffers in any age or country, more than one great example of
perfection in the kind [a]. This was the case in Greece, that prolific
parent of genius and of science. She had but one Homer, one Plato, one
Demosthenes. The same has happened at Rome: Virgil stands at the head
of his art, and Cicero is still unrivalled. During a space of seven
hundred years our ancestors were struggling to reach the summit of
perfection: Cicero at length arose; he thundered forth his immortal
energy, and nature was satisfied with the wonder she had made. The
force of genius could go no further. A new road to fame was to be
found. We aimed at wit, and gay conceit, and glittering sentences. The
change, indeed, was great; but it naturally followed the new form of
government. Genius died with public liberty.
13. We find that the discourse of men always conforms to the temper of
the times. Among savage nations [a] language is never copious. A few
words serve the purpose of barbarians, and those are always uncouth
and harsh, without the artifice of connection; short, abrupt, and
nervous. In a state of polished society, where a single ruler sways
the sceptre, the powers of the mind take a softer tone, and language
grows more refined. But affectation follows, and precision gives way
to delicacy. The just and natural expression is no longer the fashion.
Living in ease and luxury, men look for elegance, and hope by novelty
to give a grace to adulation. In other nations, where the first
principles of the civil union are maintained in vigour; where the
people live under the government of laws, and not the will of man;
where the spirit of liberty pervades all ranks and orders of the
state; where every individual holds himself bound, at the hazard of
his life, to defend the constitution framed by his ancestors; where,
without being guilty of an impious crime, no man dares to violate the
rights of the whole community; in such a state, the national eloquence
will be prompt, bold, and animated. Should internal dissensions shake
the public peace, or foreign enemies threaten to invade the land,
Eloquence comes forth arrayed in terror; she wields her thunder, and
commands all hearts. It is true, that upon those occasions men of
ambition endeavour, for their own purposes, to spread the flame of
sedition; while the good and virtuous combine their force to quell the
turbulent, and repel the menaces of a foreign enemy. Liberty gains new
strength by the conflict, and the true patriot has the glory of
serving his country, distinguished by his valour in the field, and in
debate no less terrible by his eloquence.
14. Hence it is that in free governments we see a constellation of
orators. Hence Demosthenes displayed the powers of his amazing genius,
and acquired immortal honour. He saw a quick and lively people,
dissolved in luxury, open to the seductions of wealth, and ready to
submit to a master; he saw a great and warlike monarch threatening
destruction to the liberties of his country; he saw that prince at the
head of powerful armies, renowned for victory, possessed of an opulent
treasury, formidable in battle, and, by his secret arts, still more so
in the cabinet; he saw that king, inflamed by ambition and the lust of
dominion, determined to destroy the liberties of Greece. It was that
alarming crisis that called forth the powers of Demosthenes. Armed
with eloquence, and with eloquence only, he stood as a bulwark against
a combination of enemies foreign and domestic. He roused his
countrymen from their lethargy: he kindled the holy flame of liberty;
he counteracted the machinations of Philip, detected his clandestine
frauds, and fired the men of Athens with indignation. To effect these
generous purposes, and defeat the policy of a subtle enemy, what
powers of mind were necessary! how vast, how copious, how sublime! He
thundered and lightened in his discourse; he faced every danger with
undaunted resolution. Difficulties served only to inspire him with new
ardour. The love of his country glowed in his heart; liberty roused
all his powers, and Fame held forth her immortal wreath to reward his
labours. These were the fine incentives that roused his genius, and no
wonder that his mind expanded with vast conceptions. He thought for
his country, and, by consequence, every sentiment was sublime; every
expression was grand and magnificent.
XXXVI. The true spirit of genuine eloquence [a], like an intense fire,
is kept alive by fresh materials: every new commotion gives it vigour,
and in proportion as it burns, it expands and brightens to a purer
flame. The same causes at Rome produced the same effect. Tempestuous
times called forth the genius of our ancestors. The moderns, it is
true, have taken fire, and rose above themselves, as often as a quiet,
settled, and uniform government gave a fair opportunity; but
eloquence, it is certain, flourishes most under a bold and turbulent
democracy, where the ambitious citizen, who best can mould to his
purposes a fierce and contentious multitude, is sure to be the idol of
the people. In the conflict of parties, that kept our ancestors in
agitation, laws were multiplied; the leading chiefs were the favourite
demagogues; the magistrates were often engaged in midnight debate;
eminent citizens were brought to a public trial; families were set at
variance; the nobles were split into factions, and the senate waged
incessant war against the people. Hence that flame of eloquence which
blazed out under the republican government, and hence that constant
fuel that kept the flame alive.
The state, it is true, was often thrown into convulsions: but talents
were exercised, and genius opened the way to public honours. He who
possessed the powers of persuasion, rose to eminence, and by the arts
which gave him popularity, he was sure to eclipse his colleagues. He
strengthened his interest with the leading men, and gained weight and
influence not only in the senate, but in all assemblies of the people.
Foreign nations [b] courted his friendship. The magistrates, setting
out for their provinces, made it their business to ingratiate
themselves with the popular speaker, and, at their return, took care
to renew their homage. The powerful orator had no occasion to solicit
for preferment: the offices of prætor and consul stood open to receive
him. He was invited to those exalted stations. Even in the rank of a
private citizen he had a considerable share of power, since his
authority swayed at once the senate and the people. It was in those
days a settled maxim, that no man could either rise to dignities, or
support himself in office, without possessing, in an eminent degree, a
power of words, and dignity of language.
Nor can this be a matter of wonder, when we recollect, that persons of
distinguished genius were, on various occasions, called forth by the
voice of the people, and in their presence obliged to act an important
part. Eloquence was the ruling passion of all. The reason is, it was
not then sufficient merely to vote in the senate; it was necessary to
support that vote with strength of reasoning, and a flow of language.
Moreover, in all prosecutions, the party accused was expected to make
his defence in person, and to examine the witnesses [c], who at that
time were not allowed to speak in written depositions, but were
obliged to give their testimony in open court. In this manner,
necessity, no less than the temptation of bright rewards, conspired to
make men cultivate the arts of oratory. He who was known to possess
the powers of speech, was held in the highest veneration. The mute and
silent character fell into contempt. The dread of shame was a motive
not less powerful than the ambition that aimed at honours. To sink
into the humiliating rank of a client, instead of maintaining the
dignity of a patron, was a degrading thought. Men were unwilling to
see the followers of their ancestors transferred to other families for
protection. Above all, they dreaded the disgrace of being thought
unworthy of civil honours; and, if by intrigue they attained their
wishes, the fear of being despised for incapacity was a spur to
quicken their ardour in the pursuit of literary fame and commanding
eloquence.
XXXVII. I do not know whether you have as yet seen the historical
memoirs which Mucianus [a] has collected, and lately published,
containing, in eleven volumes, the transactions of the times, and, in
three more, the letters of eminent men who figured on the stage of
public business. This portion of history is well authenticated by the
original papers, still extant in the libraries of the curious. From
this valuable collection it appears, that Pompey and Crassus [b] owed
their elevation as much to their talents as to their fame in arms; and
that Lentulus [c], Metellus, Lucullus, Curio, and others of that
class, took care to enlarge their minds, and distinguish themselves by
their powers of speech. To say all in one word, no man, in those
times, rose to eminence in the state, who had not given proof of his
genius in the forum and the tribunals of justice.
To this it may be added, that the importance, the splendour, and
magnitude of the questions discussed in that period, served to animate
the public orator. The subject, beyond all doubt, lifts the mind above
itself: it gives vigour to sentiment, and energy to expression. Let
the topic be a paltry theft, a dry form of pleading, or a petty
misdemeanor; will not the orator feel himself cramped and chilled by
the meanness of the question? Give him a cause of magnitude, such as
bribery in the election of magistrates, a charge for plundering the
allies of Rome, or the murder of Roman citizens, how different then
his emotions! how sublime each sentiment! what dignity of language!
The effect, it must be admitted, springs from the disasters of
society. It is true, that form of government, in which no such evils
occur, must, beyond all question, be allowed to be the best; but
since, in the course of human affairs, sudden convulsions must happen,
my position is, that they produced, at Rome, that flame of eloquence
which at this hour is so much admired. The mind of the orator grows
and expands with his subject. Without ample materials no splendid
oration was ever yet produced. Demosthenes, I believe, did not owe his
vast reputation to the speeches which he made against his guardians
[d]; nor was it either the oration in defence of Quinctius, or that
for Archias the poet, that established the character of Cicero. It was
Catiline, it was Verres, it was Milo and Mark Antony, that spread so
much glory round him.
Let me not be misunderstood: I do not say, that for the sake of
hearing a bright display of eloquence, it is fit that the public peace
should be disturbed by the machinations of turbulent and lawless men.
But, not to lose sight of the question before us, let it be
remembered, that we are enquiring about an art which thrives and
flourishes most in tempestuous times. It were, no doubt, better that
the public should enjoy the sweets of peace, than be harassed by the
calamities of war: but still it is war that produces the soldier and
great commander. It is the same with Eloquence. The oftener she is
obliged, if I may so express it, to take the field, the more frequent
the engagement, in which she gives and receives alternate wounds, and
the more formidable her adversary; the more she rises in pomp and
grandeur, and returns from the warfare of the forum crowned with
unfading laurels. He, who encounters danger, is ever sure to win the
suffrages of mankind. For such is the nature of the human mind, that,
in general, we choose a state of security for ourselves, but never
fail to gaze with admiration on the man, whom we see, in the conflict
of parties, facing his adversaries, and surmounting difficulties.
XXXVIII. I proceed to another advantage of the ancient forum; I mean
the form of proceeding and the rules of practice observed in those
days. Our modern custom is, I grant, more conducive to truth and
justice; but that of former times gave to eloquence a free career,
and, by consequence, greater weight and splendour. The advocate was
not, as now, confined to a few hours [a]; he might adjourn as often as
it suited his convenience; he might expatiate, as his genius prompted
him: and the number of days, like that of the several patrons, was
unlimited. Pompey was the first who circumscribed the genius of men
within narrower limits [b]. In his third consulship he gave a check to
eloquence, and, as it were, bridled its spirit, but still left all
causes to be tried according to law in the forum, and before the
prætors. The importance of the business, which was decided in that
court of justice, will be evident, if we compare it with the
transactions before the centumvirs [c], who at present have cognizance
of all matters whatever. We have not so much as one oration of Cicero
or Cæsar, of Brutus, Cælius, or Calvus, or any other person famous for
his eloquence, which was delivered before the last-mentioned
jurisdiction, excepting only the speeches of Asinius Pollio [d] for
the heirs of Urbinia. But those speeches were delivered about the
middle of the reign of Augustus, when, after a long peace with foreign
nations, and a profound tranquillity at home, that wise and politic
prince had conquered all opposition, and not only triumphed over party
and faction, but subdued eloquence itself.
XXXIX. What I am going to say will appear, perhaps, too minute; it may
border on the ridiculous, and excite your mirth: with all my heart; I
will hazard it for that very reason. The dress now in use at the bar
has an air of meanness: the speaker is confined in a close robe [a],
and loses all the grace of action. The very courts of judicature are
another objection; all causes are heard, at present, in little narrow
rooms, where spirit and strenuous exertion are unnecessary. The
orator, like a generous steed, requires liberty and ample space:
before a scanty tribunal his spirit droops, and the dullness of the
scene damps the powers of genius. Add to this, we pay no attention to
style; and indeed how should we? No time is allowed for the beauties
of composition: the judge calls upon you to begin, and you must obey,
liable, at the same time, to frequent interruptions, while documents
are read, and witnesses examined.
During all this formality, what kind of an audience has the orator to
invigorate his faculties? Two or three stragglers drop in by chance,
and to them the whole business seems to be transacted in solitude. But
the orator requires a different scene. He delights in clamour, tumult,
and bursts of applause. Eloquence must have her theatre, as was the
case in ancient times, when the forum was crowded with the first men
in Rome; when a numerous train of clients pressed forward with eager
expectation; when the people, in their several tribes; when
ambassadors from the colonies, and a great part of Italy; attended to
hear the debate; in short, when all Rome was interested in the event.
We know that in the cases of Cornelius, Scaurus, Milo, Bestia, and
Vatinius, the concourse was so great, that those several causes were
tried before the whole body of the people. A scene so vast and
magnificent was enough to inflame the most languid orator. The
speeches delivered upon those occasions are in every body's hands,
and, by their intrinsic excellence, we of this day estimate the genius
of the respective authors.
XL. If we now consider the frequent assemblies of the people, and the
right of prosecuting the most eminent men in the state; if we reflect
on the glory that sprung from the declared hostility of the most
illustrious characters; if we recollect, that even Scipio, Sylla, and
Pompey, were not sheltered from the storms of eloquence, what a number
of causes shall we see conspiring to rouse the spirit of the ancient
forum! The malignity of the human heart, always adverse to superior
characters, encouraged the orator to persist. The very players, by
sarcastic allusions to men in power, gratified the public ear, and, by
consequence, sharpened the wit and acrimony of the bold declaimer.
Need I observe to you, that in all I have said, I have not been
speaking of that temperate faculty [a] which delights in quiet times,
supported by its own integrity, and the virtues of moderation? I speak
of popular eloquence, the genuine offspring of that licentiousness, to
which fools and ill-designing men have given the name of liberty: I
speak of bold and turbulent oratory, that inflamer of the people, and
constant companion of sedition; that fierce incendiary, that knows no
compliance, and scorns to temporize; busy, rash, and arrogant, but, in
quiet and well regulated governments, utterly unknown. Who ever heard
of an orator at Crete or Lacedæmon? In those states a system of
rigorous discipline was established by the first principles of the
constitution. Macedonian and Persian eloquence are equally unknown.
The same may be said of every country, where the plan of government
was fixed and uniform.
At Rhodes, indeed, and also at Athens, orators existed without number,
and the reason is, in those communities the people directed every
thing; a giddy multitude governed, and, to say the truth, all things
were in the power of all. In like manner, while Rome was engaged in
one perpetual scene of contention; while parties, factions, and
internal divisions, convulsed the state; no peace in the forum, in the
senate no union of sentiment; while the tribunals of justice acted
without moderation; while the magistrates knew no bounds, and no man
paid respect to eminent merit; in such times it must be acknowledged
that Rome produced a race of noble orators; as in the wild
uncultivated field the richest vegetables will often shoot up, and
flourish with uncommon vigour. And yet it is fair to ask, Could all
the eloquence of the Gracchi atone for the laws which they imposed on
their country? Could the fame which Cicero obtained by his eloquence,
compensate for the tragic end to which it brought him [b]?
XLI. The forum, at present, is the last sad relic of ancient oratory.
But does that epitome of former greatness give the idea of a city so
well regulated, that we may rest contented with our form of
government, without wishing for a reformation of abuses? If we except
the man of guilt, or such as labour under the hard hand of oppression,
who resorts to us for our assistance? If a municipal city applies for
protection, it is, when the inhabitants, harassed by the adjacent
states, or rent and torn by intestine divisions, sue for protection.
The province, that addresses the senate for a redress of grievances,
has been oppressed and plundered, before we hear of the complaint. It
is true, we vindicate the injured, but to suffer no oppression would
surely be better than to obtain relief. Find, if you can, in any part
of the world a wise and happy community, where no man offends against
the laws: in such a nation what can be the use of oratory? You may as
well profess the healing art where ill health is never known. Let men
enjoy bodily vigour, and the practice of physic will have no
encouragement. In like manner, where sober manners prevail, and
submission to the authority of government is the national virtue, the
powers of persuasion are rendered useless. Eloquence has lost her
field of glory. In the senate, what need of elaborate speeches, when
all good men are already of one mind? What occasion for studied
harangues before a popular assembly, where the form of government
leaves nothing to the decision of a wild democracy, but the whole
administration is conducted by the wisdom of a single ruler? And
again; when crimes are rare, and in fact of no great moment, what
avails the boasted right of individuals to commence a voluntary
prosecution? What necessity for a studied defence, often composed in a
style of vehemence, artfully addressed to the passions, and generally
stretched beyond all bounds, when justice is executed in mercy, and
the judge is of himself disposed to succour the distressed?
Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my
eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic,
and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present
age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence,
the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would
now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times. Upon the
whole, since no man can enjoy a state of calm tranquillity, and, at
the same time, raise a great and splendid reputation; to be content
with the benefits of the age in which we live, without detracting from
our ancestors, is the virtue that best becomes us.
XLII. Maternus concluded [a] his discourse. There have been, said
Messala, some points advanced, to which I do not entirely accede; and
others, which I think require farther explanation. But the day is well
nigh spent. We will, therefore, adjourn the debate. Be it as you think
proper, replied Maternus; and if, in what I have said, you find any
thing not sufficiently clear, we will adjust those matters in some
future conference. Hereupon he rose from his seat, and embracing Aper,
I am afraid, he said, that it will fare hardly with you, my good
friend. I shall cite you to answer before the poets, and Messala will
arraign you at the bar of the antiquarians. And I, replied Aper, shall
make reprisals on you both before the school professors and the
rhetoricians. This occasioned some mirth and raillery. We laughed, and
parted in good humour.
END OF THE DIALOGUE.
NOTES ON THE DIALOGUE CONCERNING ORATORY.
The scene of the following Dialogue is laid in the sixth year of
Vespasian, A. U. C. 828. A. D. 75. The commentators are much divided in
their opinions about the real author; his work they all agree is a
masterpiece in the kind; written with taste and judgement;
entertaining, profound, and elegant. But whether it is to be ascribed
to Tacitus, Quintilian, or any other person whom they cannot name, is
a question upon which they have exhausted a store of learning. They
have given us, according to their custom, much controversy, and little
decision. In this field of conjecture Lipsius led the way. He
published, in 1574, the first good edition of Tacitus, with
emendations of the text, and not removed; he still remains in
suspense. _Cum multa dixerim, claudo tamen omnia hoc responso; MIHI
NON LIQUERE. _ Gronovius Pichena, Ryckius, Rhenanus, and others, have
entered warmly into the dispute. An elegant modern writer has hazarded
a new conjecture. The last of Sir Thomas Fitzosborne's Letters is a
kind of preface to Mr. Melmoth's Translation of the Dialogue before
us. He says; of all the conversation pieces, whether ancient or
modern, either of the moral or polite kind, he knows not one more
elegantly written than the little anonymous Dialogue concerning the
rise and decline of eloquence among the Romans. He calls it anonymous,
though he is aware, that it has been ascribed not only to Tacitus and
Quintilian, but even to Suetonius. The reasons, however, are so
inconclusive, that he is inclined to give it to the younger Pliny. He
thinks it perfectly coincides with Pliny's age; it is addressed to one
of his particular friends, and is marked with similar expressions and
sentiments. But, with all due submission to Mr. Melmoth, his new
candidate cannot long hold us in suspense. It appears in the account
of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in which Pliny's uncle lost his
life. A. U. C. 832. A. D. 79, that Pliny was then eighteen years old,
and, as the Dialogue was in 828, he could then be no more than
fourteen; a time of life, when he was neither fit to be admitted to a
learned debate, nor capable of understanding it. Besides this, two
letters to his friend FABIUS are still extant; one in the first book,
epist. 11; the other, book vii. epist. 2. No mention of the Dialogue
occurs in either of those letters, nor in any other part of his works;
a circumstance, which could scarce have happened to a writer so
tenderly anxious about his literary character, if the work in question
had been the production of his part. Brotier, the last, and, it may be
said, the best of all the editors of Tacitus, is of opinion that a
tract, so beautiful and judicious, ought not, without better reasons
than have been as yet assigned, to be adjudged from Tacitus to any
other writer. He relies much on the first edition, which was published
at Venice (1468), containing the last six books of the Annals (the
first six not being then found), the five books of the History, and
the Dialogue, intitled, _Cornelii Taciti Equitis Romani Dialogus de
Oratoribus claris. _ There were also in the Vatican, manuscript copies
of the Dialogue _de Oratoribus_. In 1515, when the six first Annals
were found in Germany, a new edition, under the patronage of Leo X.
was published by Beroaldus, carefully collated with the manuscript,
which was afterwards placed in the Florentine Library. Those early
authorities preponderate with Brotier against all modern conjecture;
more especially, since the age of Tacitus agrees with the time of the
Dialogue. He was four years older than his friend Pliny, and, at
eighteen, might properly be allowed by his friends to be of their
party. In two years afterwards (A. U. 830), he married Agricola's
daughter, and he expressly says, (Life of Agricola, sect. ix. ) that he
was then a very young man. The arguments, drawn by the several
commentators from the difference of style, Brotier thinks are of no
weight. The style of a young author will naturally differ from what he
has settled by practice at an advanced period of life. This has been
observed in many eminent writers, and in none more than Lipsius
himself. His language, in the outset, was easy, flowing, and elegant;
but, as he advanced in years, it became stiff, abrupt, and harsh.
Tacitus relates a conversation on a literary subject; and in such a
piece, who can expect to find the style of an historian or an
annalist? For these reasons Brotier thinks that this Dialogue may,
with good reason, be ascribed to Tacitus. The translator enters no
farther into the controversy, than to say, that in a case where
certainty cannot be obtained, we must rest satisfied with the best
evidence the nature of the thing will admit. The dispute is of no
importance; for, as Lipsius says, whether we give the Dialogue to
Quintilian or to Tacitus, no inconvenience can arise. Whoever was the
author, it is a performance of uncommon beauty.
Before we close this introduction, it will not be improper to say a
word or two about Brotier's Supplement. In the wreck of ancient
literature a considerable part of this Dialogue has perished, and, by
consequence, a chasm is left, much to be lamented by every reader of
taste. To avoid the inconvenience of a broken context, Brotier has
endeavoured to compensate for the loss. What he has added, will be
found in the progress of the work; and as it is executed by the
learned editor with great elegance, and equal probability, it is hoped
that the insertion of it will be more agreeable to the reader, than a
dull pause of melancholy regret.
Section I.
[a] Justus Fabius was consul A. U. C. 864, A. D. 111. But as he did not
begin the year, his name does not appear in the FASTI CONSULARES.
There are two letters to him from his friend Pliny; the first, lib. i.
epist. 11; the other, lib. vii. ep. 2. it is remarkable, that in the
last, the author talks of sending some of his writings for his
friend's perusal; _quæram quid potissimum ex nugis meis tibi
exhibeam_; but not a word is said about the decline of eloquence.
Section II.
[a] Concerning Maternus nothing is known with any kind of certainty.
Dio relates that a sophist, of that name, was put to death by
Domitian, for a school declamation against tyrants: but not one of the
commentators ventures to assert that he was the _Curiatius Maternus_,
who makes so conspicuous a figure in the Dialogue before us.
[b] No mention is made of Marcus Aper, either by Quintilian or Pliny.
It is supposed that he was father of Marcus Flavius Aper, who was
substituted consul A. U. C. 883, A. D. 130. His oratorical character, and
that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not
unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he
says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he
wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the
good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on
the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater
magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void
of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their
popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not
knowing them. _Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam
existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum
hominum in omni genere prudentiam Græcis anteferre. Antonius autem
probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omninò didicisse
nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter
contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Græcos videretur. _ Cicero _De Orat. _
lib. ii. cap. 1.
[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he
had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to
posterity among the most celebrated orators. He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some
degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable
name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with
grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed
his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate;
and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy
with which his meaning was conveyed. _Julio Secundo, si longior
contigisset ætas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros
foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, cæteris virtutibus suis,
quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et
sæpius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Cæterum interceptus
quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum
dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quæ assumpta sunt, proprietas;
tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia. _ Quintil. lib.
x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman
orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The
Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men
who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have
been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth
recording.
Section III.
[a] Thyestes was a common and popular subject of ancient tragedy.
Indignatur item privatis, et prope socco
Dignis carminibus narrari coena Thyestæ.
HORAT. ARS POET. ver. 90.
[b] It was the custom of the colonies and municipal towns, to pay
their court to some great orator at Rome, in order to obtain his
patronage, whenever they should have occasion to apply to the senate
for a redress of grievances.
[c] Domitius was another subject of tragedy, taken from the Roman
story. Who he was, does not clearly appear. Brotier thinks it was
Domitius, the avowed enemy of Julius Cæsar, who moved in the senate
for a law to recall that general from the command of the army in Gaul,
and, afterwards, on the breaking out of the civil war, fell bravely
at the battle of Pharsalia. See Suetonius, Life of Nero, section 2.
Such a character might furnish the subject of a tragedy. The Roman
poets were in the habit of enriching their drama with domestic
occurrences, and the practice was applauded by Horace.
Nec minimum meruêre decus, vestigia Græca
Ausi deserere, et celebrare domestica facta.
ARS POET. ver. 286.
No path to fame our poets left untried;
Nor small their merit, when with conscious pride
They scorn'd to take from Greece the storied theme,
But dar'd to sing their own domestic fame.
FRANCIS'S HORACE.
Section V.
[a] There were at Rome several eminent men of the name of Bassus.
With regard to the person here called Saleius Bassus, the commentators
have not been able to glean much information. Some have contended that
it was to him Persius addressed his sixth satire:
Admovit jam bruma foco te, Basse, Sabino.
But if we may believe the old scholiast, his name was CÆSIUS BASSUS, a
much admired lyric poet, who was living on his own farm, at the time
when Mount Vesuvius discharged its torrents of fire, and made the
country round a scene of desolation. The poet and his house were
overwhelmed by the eruption of the lava, which happened A. U. 832, in
the reign of Titus. Quintilian says of him (b. x. chap. 1. ), that if
after Horace any poet deserves to be mentioned, Cæsius Bassus was the
man. _Si quem adjicere velis, is erit Cæsius Bassus. _ Saleius Bassus
is mentioned by Juvenal as an eminent poet in distress:
----At Serrano tenuique Saleio
Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est?
SAT. vii. ver. 80.
But to poor Bassus what avails a name,
To starve on compliments and empty fame!
DRYDEN'S JUVENAL.
Quintilian says, he possessed a poetic genius, but so warm and
vehement, that, even in an advanced age, his spirit was not under the
control of sober judgement. _Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEII
BASSI fuit; nec ipsum senectute maturum. _ This passage affords an
insuperable argument against Lipsius, and the rest of the critics who
named Quintilian as a candidate for the honour of this elegant
composition. Can it be imagined that a writer of fair integrity, would
in his great work speak of Bassus as he deserved, and in the Dialogue
overrate him beyond all proportion? Duplicity was not a part of
Quintilian's character.
[b] Tacitus, it may be presumed with good reason, was a diligent
reader of Cicero, Livy, Sallust, and Seneca. He has, in various parts
of his works, coincidences of sentiment and diction, that plainly shew
the source from which they sprung. In the present case, when he calls
eloquence a buckler to protect yourself, and a weapon to annoy your
adversary, can anyone doubt but he had his eye on the following
sentence in _Cicero de Oratore_? _Quid autem tam necessarium, quam
tenere semper arma, quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis, vel provocare
integros, et te ulcisci lacessitus? _
[c] Eprius Marcellus is often a conspicuous figure in the Annals and
the History of Tacitus. To a bad heart he united the gift of
eloquence. In the Annals, b. xvi. s. 28, he makes a vehement speech
against Pætus Thrasea, and afterwards wrought the destruction of that
excellent man. For that exploit, he was attacked, in the beginning of
Vespasian's reign, by Helvidius Priscus. In the History (book iv. s. 7
and 8) we see them both engaged in a violent contention. In the
following year (823), Helvidius in the senate opened an accusation in
form; but Marcellus, by using his eloquence as his buckler and his
offensive weapon, was able to ward off the blow. He rose from his
seat, and, "I leave you," he said, "I leave you to give the law to the
senate: reign, if you will, even in the presence of the prince. " See
Hist. iv. s. 43. See also, Life of Agricola, s. 11. notes a and b.
Section VI.
[a] To be rich and have no issue, gave to the person so circumstanced
the highest consequence at Rome. All ranks of men paid their court to
him.
talents.
8. To oppose the torrent, that bore down every thing, the danger of
losing all fair and honest fame was the only circumstance that could
afford a ray of hope. But even that slender fence was soon removed by
the arts of [a] Largius Licinius. He was the first that opened a new
road to ambition. He intrigued for fame, and filled the benches with
an audience suborned to applaud his declamations. He had his circle
round him, and shouts of approbation followed. It was upon that
occasion that Domitius Afer [b] emphatically said, Eloquence is now at
the last gasp. It had, indeed, at that time shewn manifest symptoms of
decay, but its total ruin may be dated from the introduction of a
mercenary band [c] to flatter and applaud. If we except a chosen few,
whose superior genius has not as yet been seduced from truth and
nature, the rest are followed by their partisans, like actors on the
stage, subsisting altogether on the bought suffrages of mean and
prostitute hirelings. Nor is this sordid traffic carried on with
secrecy: we see the bargain made in the face of the court; the bribe
is distributed with as little ceremony as if they were in a private
party at the orator's own house. Having sold their voices, this venal
crew rush forward from one tribunal to another, the distributors of
fame, and the sole judges of literary merit. The practice is, no
doubt, disgraceful. To brand it with infamy, two new terms have been
invented [d], one in the Greek language, importing the venders of
praise, and the other in the Latin idiom, signifying the parasites who
sell their applause for a supper. But sarcastic expressions have not
been able to cure the mischief: the applauders by profession have
taken courage, and the name, which was intended as a stroke of
ridicule, is now become an honourable appellation.
9. This infamous practice rages at present with increasing violence.
The party no longer consists of freeborn citizens; our very slaves are
hired. Even before they arrive at full age, we see them distributing
the rewards of eloquence. Without attending to what is said, and
without sense enough to understand, they are sure to crowd the courts
of justice, whenever a raw young man, stung with the love of fame, but
without talents to deserve it, obtrudes himself in the character of an
advocate. The hall resounds with acclamations, or rather with a kind
of bellowing; for I know not by what term to express that savage
uproar, which would disgrace a theatre.
Upon the whole, when I consider these infamous practices, which have
brought so much dishonour upon a liberal profession, I am far from
wondering that you, Maternus, judged it time to sound your retreat.
When you could no longer attend with honour, you did well, my friend,
to devote yourself entirely to the muses. And now, since you are to
close the debate, permit me to request, that, besides unfolding the
causes of corrupt eloquence, you will fairly tell us, whether you
entertain any hopes of better times, and, if you do, by what means a
reformation may be accomplished.
10. It is true [a], said Maternus, that seeing the forum deluged by an
inundation of vices, I was glad, as my friend expressed it, to sound
my retreat. I saw corruption rushing on with hasty strides, too
shameful to be defended, and too powerful to be resisted. And yet,
though urged by all those motives, I should hardly have renounced the
business of the bar, if the bias of my nature had not inclined me to
other studies. I balanced, however, for some time. It was, at first,
my fixed resolution to stand to the last a poor remnant of that
integrity and manly eloquence, which still lingered at the bar, and
shewed some signs of life. It was my intention to emulate, not,
indeed, with equal powers, but certainly with equal firmness, the
bright models of ancient times, and, in that course of practice, to
defend the fortunes, the dignity, and the innocence of my
fellow-citizens. But the strong impulse of inclination was not to be
resisted. I laid down my arms, and deserted to the safe and tranquil
camp of the muses. But though a deserter, I have not quite forgot the
service in which I was enlisted. I honour the professors of real
eloquence, and that sentiment, I hope, will be always warm in my
heart.
11. In my solitary walks, and moments of meditation, it often happens,
that I fall into a train of thinking on the flourishing state of
ancient eloquence, and the abject condition to which it is reduced in
modern times. The result of my reflections I shall venture to unfold,
not with a spirit of controversy, nor yet dogmatically to enforce my
own opinion. I may differ in some points, but from a collision of
sentiments it is possible that some new light may be struck out. My
friend Aper will, therefore, excuse me, if I do not, with him, prefer
the false glitter of the moderns to the solid vigour of ancient
genius. At the same time, it is not my intention to disparage his
friends. Messala too, whom you, Secundus, have closely followed, will
forgive me, if I do not, in every thing, coincide with his opinion.
The vices of the forum, which you have both, as becomes men of
integrity, attacked with vehemence, will not have me for their
apologist. But still I may be allowed to ask, have not you been too
much exasperated against the rhetoricians?
I will not say in their favour, that I think them equal to the task of
reviving the honours of eloquence; but I have known among them, men of
unblemished morals, of regular discipline, great erudition, and
talents every way fit to form the minds of youth to a just taste for
science and the persuasive arts. In this number one in particular [a]
has lately shone forth with superior lustre. From his abilities, all
that is in the power of man may fairly be expected. A genius like his
would have been the ornament of better times. Posterity will admire
and honour him. And yet I would not have Secundus amuse himself with
ill-grounded hopes: neither the learning of that most excellent man,
nor the industry of such as may follow him, will be able to promote
the interests of Eloquence, or to establish her former glory. It is a
lost cause. Before the vices, which have been so ably described, had
spread a general infection, all true oratory was at an end. The
revolutions in our government, and the violence of the times, began
the mischief, and, in the end, gave the fatal blow.
12. Nor are we to wonder at this event. In the course of human affairs
there is no stability, nothing secure or permanent. It is with our
minds as with our bodies: the latter, as soon as they have attained
their full growth, and seem to flourish in the vigour of health,
begin, from that moment, to feel the gradual approaches of decay. Our
intellectual powers proceed in the same manner; they gain strength by
degrees, they arrive at maturity, and, when they can no longer
improve, they languish, droop, and fade away. This is the law of
nature, to which every age, and every nation, of which we have any
historical records, have been obliged to submit. There is besides
another general law, hard perhaps, but wonderfully ordained, and it is
this: nature, whose operations are always simple and uniform, never
suffers in any age or country, more than one great example of
perfection in the kind [a]. This was the case in Greece, that prolific
parent of genius and of science. She had but one Homer, one Plato, one
Demosthenes. The same has happened at Rome: Virgil stands at the head
of his art, and Cicero is still unrivalled. During a space of seven
hundred years our ancestors were struggling to reach the summit of
perfection: Cicero at length arose; he thundered forth his immortal
energy, and nature was satisfied with the wonder she had made. The
force of genius could go no further. A new road to fame was to be
found. We aimed at wit, and gay conceit, and glittering sentences. The
change, indeed, was great; but it naturally followed the new form of
government. Genius died with public liberty.
13. We find that the discourse of men always conforms to the temper of
the times. Among savage nations [a] language is never copious. A few
words serve the purpose of barbarians, and those are always uncouth
and harsh, without the artifice of connection; short, abrupt, and
nervous. In a state of polished society, where a single ruler sways
the sceptre, the powers of the mind take a softer tone, and language
grows more refined. But affectation follows, and precision gives way
to delicacy. The just and natural expression is no longer the fashion.
Living in ease and luxury, men look for elegance, and hope by novelty
to give a grace to adulation. In other nations, where the first
principles of the civil union are maintained in vigour; where the
people live under the government of laws, and not the will of man;
where the spirit of liberty pervades all ranks and orders of the
state; where every individual holds himself bound, at the hazard of
his life, to defend the constitution framed by his ancestors; where,
without being guilty of an impious crime, no man dares to violate the
rights of the whole community; in such a state, the national eloquence
will be prompt, bold, and animated. Should internal dissensions shake
the public peace, or foreign enemies threaten to invade the land,
Eloquence comes forth arrayed in terror; she wields her thunder, and
commands all hearts. It is true, that upon those occasions men of
ambition endeavour, for their own purposes, to spread the flame of
sedition; while the good and virtuous combine their force to quell the
turbulent, and repel the menaces of a foreign enemy. Liberty gains new
strength by the conflict, and the true patriot has the glory of
serving his country, distinguished by his valour in the field, and in
debate no less terrible by his eloquence.
14. Hence it is that in free governments we see a constellation of
orators. Hence Demosthenes displayed the powers of his amazing genius,
and acquired immortal honour. He saw a quick and lively people,
dissolved in luxury, open to the seductions of wealth, and ready to
submit to a master; he saw a great and warlike monarch threatening
destruction to the liberties of his country; he saw that prince at the
head of powerful armies, renowned for victory, possessed of an opulent
treasury, formidable in battle, and, by his secret arts, still more so
in the cabinet; he saw that king, inflamed by ambition and the lust of
dominion, determined to destroy the liberties of Greece. It was that
alarming crisis that called forth the powers of Demosthenes. Armed
with eloquence, and with eloquence only, he stood as a bulwark against
a combination of enemies foreign and domestic. He roused his
countrymen from their lethargy: he kindled the holy flame of liberty;
he counteracted the machinations of Philip, detected his clandestine
frauds, and fired the men of Athens with indignation. To effect these
generous purposes, and defeat the policy of a subtle enemy, what
powers of mind were necessary! how vast, how copious, how sublime! He
thundered and lightened in his discourse; he faced every danger with
undaunted resolution. Difficulties served only to inspire him with new
ardour. The love of his country glowed in his heart; liberty roused
all his powers, and Fame held forth her immortal wreath to reward his
labours. These were the fine incentives that roused his genius, and no
wonder that his mind expanded with vast conceptions. He thought for
his country, and, by consequence, every sentiment was sublime; every
expression was grand and magnificent.
XXXVI. The true spirit of genuine eloquence [a], like an intense fire,
is kept alive by fresh materials: every new commotion gives it vigour,
and in proportion as it burns, it expands and brightens to a purer
flame. The same causes at Rome produced the same effect. Tempestuous
times called forth the genius of our ancestors. The moderns, it is
true, have taken fire, and rose above themselves, as often as a quiet,
settled, and uniform government gave a fair opportunity; but
eloquence, it is certain, flourishes most under a bold and turbulent
democracy, where the ambitious citizen, who best can mould to his
purposes a fierce and contentious multitude, is sure to be the idol of
the people. In the conflict of parties, that kept our ancestors in
agitation, laws were multiplied; the leading chiefs were the favourite
demagogues; the magistrates were often engaged in midnight debate;
eminent citizens were brought to a public trial; families were set at
variance; the nobles were split into factions, and the senate waged
incessant war against the people. Hence that flame of eloquence which
blazed out under the republican government, and hence that constant
fuel that kept the flame alive.
The state, it is true, was often thrown into convulsions: but talents
were exercised, and genius opened the way to public honours. He who
possessed the powers of persuasion, rose to eminence, and by the arts
which gave him popularity, he was sure to eclipse his colleagues. He
strengthened his interest with the leading men, and gained weight and
influence not only in the senate, but in all assemblies of the people.
Foreign nations [b] courted his friendship. The magistrates, setting
out for their provinces, made it their business to ingratiate
themselves with the popular speaker, and, at their return, took care
to renew their homage. The powerful orator had no occasion to solicit
for preferment: the offices of prætor and consul stood open to receive
him. He was invited to those exalted stations. Even in the rank of a
private citizen he had a considerable share of power, since his
authority swayed at once the senate and the people. It was in those
days a settled maxim, that no man could either rise to dignities, or
support himself in office, without possessing, in an eminent degree, a
power of words, and dignity of language.
Nor can this be a matter of wonder, when we recollect, that persons of
distinguished genius were, on various occasions, called forth by the
voice of the people, and in their presence obliged to act an important
part. Eloquence was the ruling passion of all. The reason is, it was
not then sufficient merely to vote in the senate; it was necessary to
support that vote with strength of reasoning, and a flow of language.
Moreover, in all prosecutions, the party accused was expected to make
his defence in person, and to examine the witnesses [c], who at that
time were not allowed to speak in written depositions, but were
obliged to give their testimony in open court. In this manner,
necessity, no less than the temptation of bright rewards, conspired to
make men cultivate the arts of oratory. He who was known to possess
the powers of speech, was held in the highest veneration. The mute and
silent character fell into contempt. The dread of shame was a motive
not less powerful than the ambition that aimed at honours. To sink
into the humiliating rank of a client, instead of maintaining the
dignity of a patron, was a degrading thought. Men were unwilling to
see the followers of their ancestors transferred to other families for
protection. Above all, they dreaded the disgrace of being thought
unworthy of civil honours; and, if by intrigue they attained their
wishes, the fear of being despised for incapacity was a spur to
quicken their ardour in the pursuit of literary fame and commanding
eloquence.
XXXVII. I do not know whether you have as yet seen the historical
memoirs which Mucianus [a] has collected, and lately published,
containing, in eleven volumes, the transactions of the times, and, in
three more, the letters of eminent men who figured on the stage of
public business. This portion of history is well authenticated by the
original papers, still extant in the libraries of the curious. From
this valuable collection it appears, that Pompey and Crassus [b] owed
their elevation as much to their talents as to their fame in arms; and
that Lentulus [c], Metellus, Lucullus, Curio, and others of that
class, took care to enlarge their minds, and distinguish themselves by
their powers of speech. To say all in one word, no man, in those
times, rose to eminence in the state, who had not given proof of his
genius in the forum and the tribunals of justice.
To this it may be added, that the importance, the splendour, and
magnitude of the questions discussed in that period, served to animate
the public orator. The subject, beyond all doubt, lifts the mind above
itself: it gives vigour to sentiment, and energy to expression. Let
the topic be a paltry theft, a dry form of pleading, or a petty
misdemeanor; will not the orator feel himself cramped and chilled by
the meanness of the question? Give him a cause of magnitude, such as
bribery in the election of magistrates, a charge for plundering the
allies of Rome, or the murder of Roman citizens, how different then
his emotions! how sublime each sentiment! what dignity of language!
The effect, it must be admitted, springs from the disasters of
society. It is true, that form of government, in which no such evils
occur, must, beyond all question, be allowed to be the best; but
since, in the course of human affairs, sudden convulsions must happen,
my position is, that they produced, at Rome, that flame of eloquence
which at this hour is so much admired. The mind of the orator grows
and expands with his subject. Without ample materials no splendid
oration was ever yet produced. Demosthenes, I believe, did not owe his
vast reputation to the speeches which he made against his guardians
[d]; nor was it either the oration in defence of Quinctius, or that
for Archias the poet, that established the character of Cicero. It was
Catiline, it was Verres, it was Milo and Mark Antony, that spread so
much glory round him.
Let me not be misunderstood: I do not say, that for the sake of
hearing a bright display of eloquence, it is fit that the public peace
should be disturbed by the machinations of turbulent and lawless men.
But, not to lose sight of the question before us, let it be
remembered, that we are enquiring about an art which thrives and
flourishes most in tempestuous times. It were, no doubt, better that
the public should enjoy the sweets of peace, than be harassed by the
calamities of war: but still it is war that produces the soldier and
great commander. It is the same with Eloquence. The oftener she is
obliged, if I may so express it, to take the field, the more frequent
the engagement, in which she gives and receives alternate wounds, and
the more formidable her adversary; the more she rises in pomp and
grandeur, and returns from the warfare of the forum crowned with
unfading laurels. He, who encounters danger, is ever sure to win the
suffrages of mankind. For such is the nature of the human mind, that,
in general, we choose a state of security for ourselves, but never
fail to gaze with admiration on the man, whom we see, in the conflict
of parties, facing his adversaries, and surmounting difficulties.
XXXVIII. I proceed to another advantage of the ancient forum; I mean
the form of proceeding and the rules of practice observed in those
days. Our modern custom is, I grant, more conducive to truth and
justice; but that of former times gave to eloquence a free career,
and, by consequence, greater weight and splendour. The advocate was
not, as now, confined to a few hours [a]; he might adjourn as often as
it suited his convenience; he might expatiate, as his genius prompted
him: and the number of days, like that of the several patrons, was
unlimited. Pompey was the first who circumscribed the genius of men
within narrower limits [b]. In his third consulship he gave a check to
eloquence, and, as it were, bridled its spirit, but still left all
causes to be tried according to law in the forum, and before the
prætors. The importance of the business, which was decided in that
court of justice, will be evident, if we compare it with the
transactions before the centumvirs [c], who at present have cognizance
of all matters whatever. We have not so much as one oration of Cicero
or Cæsar, of Brutus, Cælius, or Calvus, or any other person famous for
his eloquence, which was delivered before the last-mentioned
jurisdiction, excepting only the speeches of Asinius Pollio [d] for
the heirs of Urbinia. But those speeches were delivered about the
middle of the reign of Augustus, when, after a long peace with foreign
nations, and a profound tranquillity at home, that wise and politic
prince had conquered all opposition, and not only triumphed over party
and faction, but subdued eloquence itself.
XXXIX. What I am going to say will appear, perhaps, too minute; it may
border on the ridiculous, and excite your mirth: with all my heart; I
will hazard it for that very reason. The dress now in use at the bar
has an air of meanness: the speaker is confined in a close robe [a],
and loses all the grace of action. The very courts of judicature are
another objection; all causes are heard, at present, in little narrow
rooms, where spirit and strenuous exertion are unnecessary. The
orator, like a generous steed, requires liberty and ample space:
before a scanty tribunal his spirit droops, and the dullness of the
scene damps the powers of genius. Add to this, we pay no attention to
style; and indeed how should we? No time is allowed for the beauties
of composition: the judge calls upon you to begin, and you must obey,
liable, at the same time, to frequent interruptions, while documents
are read, and witnesses examined.
During all this formality, what kind of an audience has the orator to
invigorate his faculties? Two or three stragglers drop in by chance,
and to them the whole business seems to be transacted in solitude. But
the orator requires a different scene. He delights in clamour, tumult,
and bursts of applause. Eloquence must have her theatre, as was the
case in ancient times, when the forum was crowded with the first men
in Rome; when a numerous train of clients pressed forward with eager
expectation; when the people, in their several tribes; when
ambassadors from the colonies, and a great part of Italy; attended to
hear the debate; in short, when all Rome was interested in the event.
We know that in the cases of Cornelius, Scaurus, Milo, Bestia, and
Vatinius, the concourse was so great, that those several causes were
tried before the whole body of the people. A scene so vast and
magnificent was enough to inflame the most languid orator. The
speeches delivered upon those occasions are in every body's hands,
and, by their intrinsic excellence, we of this day estimate the genius
of the respective authors.
XL. If we now consider the frequent assemblies of the people, and the
right of prosecuting the most eminent men in the state; if we reflect
on the glory that sprung from the declared hostility of the most
illustrious characters; if we recollect, that even Scipio, Sylla, and
Pompey, were not sheltered from the storms of eloquence, what a number
of causes shall we see conspiring to rouse the spirit of the ancient
forum! The malignity of the human heart, always adverse to superior
characters, encouraged the orator to persist. The very players, by
sarcastic allusions to men in power, gratified the public ear, and, by
consequence, sharpened the wit and acrimony of the bold declaimer.
Need I observe to you, that in all I have said, I have not been
speaking of that temperate faculty [a] which delights in quiet times,
supported by its own integrity, and the virtues of moderation? I speak
of popular eloquence, the genuine offspring of that licentiousness, to
which fools and ill-designing men have given the name of liberty: I
speak of bold and turbulent oratory, that inflamer of the people, and
constant companion of sedition; that fierce incendiary, that knows no
compliance, and scorns to temporize; busy, rash, and arrogant, but, in
quiet and well regulated governments, utterly unknown. Who ever heard
of an orator at Crete or Lacedæmon? In those states a system of
rigorous discipline was established by the first principles of the
constitution. Macedonian and Persian eloquence are equally unknown.
The same may be said of every country, where the plan of government
was fixed and uniform.
At Rhodes, indeed, and also at Athens, orators existed without number,
and the reason is, in those communities the people directed every
thing; a giddy multitude governed, and, to say the truth, all things
were in the power of all. In like manner, while Rome was engaged in
one perpetual scene of contention; while parties, factions, and
internal divisions, convulsed the state; no peace in the forum, in the
senate no union of sentiment; while the tribunals of justice acted
without moderation; while the magistrates knew no bounds, and no man
paid respect to eminent merit; in such times it must be acknowledged
that Rome produced a race of noble orators; as in the wild
uncultivated field the richest vegetables will often shoot up, and
flourish with uncommon vigour. And yet it is fair to ask, Could all
the eloquence of the Gracchi atone for the laws which they imposed on
their country? Could the fame which Cicero obtained by his eloquence,
compensate for the tragic end to which it brought him [b]?
XLI. The forum, at present, is the last sad relic of ancient oratory.
But does that epitome of former greatness give the idea of a city so
well regulated, that we may rest contented with our form of
government, without wishing for a reformation of abuses? If we except
the man of guilt, or such as labour under the hard hand of oppression,
who resorts to us for our assistance? If a municipal city applies for
protection, it is, when the inhabitants, harassed by the adjacent
states, or rent and torn by intestine divisions, sue for protection.
The province, that addresses the senate for a redress of grievances,
has been oppressed and plundered, before we hear of the complaint. It
is true, we vindicate the injured, but to suffer no oppression would
surely be better than to obtain relief. Find, if you can, in any part
of the world a wise and happy community, where no man offends against
the laws: in such a nation what can be the use of oratory? You may as
well profess the healing art where ill health is never known. Let men
enjoy bodily vigour, and the practice of physic will have no
encouragement. In like manner, where sober manners prevail, and
submission to the authority of government is the national virtue, the
powers of persuasion are rendered useless. Eloquence has lost her
field of glory. In the senate, what need of elaborate speeches, when
all good men are already of one mind? What occasion for studied
harangues before a popular assembly, where the form of government
leaves nothing to the decision of a wild democracy, but the whole
administration is conducted by the wisdom of a single ruler? And
again; when crimes are rare, and in fact of no great moment, what
avails the boasted right of individuals to commence a voluntary
prosecution? What necessity for a studied defence, often composed in a
style of vehemence, artfully addressed to the passions, and generally
stretched beyond all bounds, when justice is executed in mercy, and
the judge is of himself disposed to succour the distressed?
Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my
eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic,
and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present
age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence,
the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would
now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times. Upon the
whole, since no man can enjoy a state of calm tranquillity, and, at
the same time, raise a great and splendid reputation; to be content
with the benefits of the age in which we live, without detracting from
our ancestors, is the virtue that best becomes us.
XLII. Maternus concluded [a] his discourse. There have been, said
Messala, some points advanced, to which I do not entirely accede; and
others, which I think require farther explanation. But the day is well
nigh spent. We will, therefore, adjourn the debate. Be it as you think
proper, replied Maternus; and if, in what I have said, you find any
thing not sufficiently clear, we will adjust those matters in some
future conference. Hereupon he rose from his seat, and embracing Aper,
I am afraid, he said, that it will fare hardly with you, my good
friend. I shall cite you to answer before the poets, and Messala will
arraign you at the bar of the antiquarians. And I, replied Aper, shall
make reprisals on you both before the school professors and the
rhetoricians. This occasioned some mirth and raillery. We laughed, and
parted in good humour.
END OF THE DIALOGUE.
NOTES ON THE DIALOGUE CONCERNING ORATORY.
The scene of the following Dialogue is laid in the sixth year of
Vespasian, A. U. C. 828. A. D. 75. The commentators are much divided in
their opinions about the real author; his work they all agree is a
masterpiece in the kind; written with taste and judgement;
entertaining, profound, and elegant. But whether it is to be ascribed
to Tacitus, Quintilian, or any other person whom they cannot name, is
a question upon which they have exhausted a store of learning. They
have given us, according to their custom, much controversy, and little
decision. In this field of conjecture Lipsius led the way. He
published, in 1574, the first good edition of Tacitus, with
emendations of the text, and not removed; he still remains in
suspense. _Cum multa dixerim, claudo tamen omnia hoc responso; MIHI
NON LIQUERE. _ Gronovius Pichena, Ryckius, Rhenanus, and others, have
entered warmly into the dispute. An elegant modern writer has hazarded
a new conjecture. The last of Sir Thomas Fitzosborne's Letters is a
kind of preface to Mr. Melmoth's Translation of the Dialogue before
us. He says; of all the conversation pieces, whether ancient or
modern, either of the moral or polite kind, he knows not one more
elegantly written than the little anonymous Dialogue concerning the
rise and decline of eloquence among the Romans. He calls it anonymous,
though he is aware, that it has been ascribed not only to Tacitus and
Quintilian, but even to Suetonius. The reasons, however, are so
inconclusive, that he is inclined to give it to the younger Pliny. He
thinks it perfectly coincides with Pliny's age; it is addressed to one
of his particular friends, and is marked with similar expressions and
sentiments. But, with all due submission to Mr. Melmoth, his new
candidate cannot long hold us in suspense. It appears in the account
of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in which Pliny's uncle lost his
life. A. U. C. 832. A. D. 79, that Pliny was then eighteen years old,
and, as the Dialogue was in 828, he could then be no more than
fourteen; a time of life, when he was neither fit to be admitted to a
learned debate, nor capable of understanding it. Besides this, two
letters to his friend FABIUS are still extant; one in the first book,
epist. 11; the other, book vii. epist. 2. No mention of the Dialogue
occurs in either of those letters, nor in any other part of his works;
a circumstance, which could scarce have happened to a writer so
tenderly anxious about his literary character, if the work in question
had been the production of his part. Brotier, the last, and, it may be
said, the best of all the editors of Tacitus, is of opinion that a
tract, so beautiful and judicious, ought not, without better reasons
than have been as yet assigned, to be adjudged from Tacitus to any
other writer. He relies much on the first edition, which was published
at Venice (1468), containing the last six books of the Annals (the
first six not being then found), the five books of the History, and
the Dialogue, intitled, _Cornelii Taciti Equitis Romani Dialogus de
Oratoribus claris. _ There were also in the Vatican, manuscript copies
of the Dialogue _de Oratoribus_. In 1515, when the six first Annals
were found in Germany, a new edition, under the patronage of Leo X.
was published by Beroaldus, carefully collated with the manuscript,
which was afterwards placed in the Florentine Library. Those early
authorities preponderate with Brotier against all modern conjecture;
more especially, since the age of Tacitus agrees with the time of the
Dialogue. He was four years older than his friend Pliny, and, at
eighteen, might properly be allowed by his friends to be of their
party. In two years afterwards (A. U. 830), he married Agricola's
daughter, and he expressly says, (Life of Agricola, sect. ix. ) that he
was then a very young man. The arguments, drawn by the several
commentators from the difference of style, Brotier thinks are of no
weight. The style of a young author will naturally differ from what he
has settled by practice at an advanced period of life. This has been
observed in many eminent writers, and in none more than Lipsius
himself. His language, in the outset, was easy, flowing, and elegant;
but, as he advanced in years, it became stiff, abrupt, and harsh.
Tacitus relates a conversation on a literary subject; and in such a
piece, who can expect to find the style of an historian or an
annalist? For these reasons Brotier thinks that this Dialogue may,
with good reason, be ascribed to Tacitus. The translator enters no
farther into the controversy, than to say, that in a case where
certainty cannot be obtained, we must rest satisfied with the best
evidence the nature of the thing will admit. The dispute is of no
importance; for, as Lipsius says, whether we give the Dialogue to
Quintilian or to Tacitus, no inconvenience can arise. Whoever was the
author, it is a performance of uncommon beauty.
Before we close this introduction, it will not be improper to say a
word or two about Brotier's Supplement. In the wreck of ancient
literature a considerable part of this Dialogue has perished, and, by
consequence, a chasm is left, much to be lamented by every reader of
taste. To avoid the inconvenience of a broken context, Brotier has
endeavoured to compensate for the loss. What he has added, will be
found in the progress of the work; and as it is executed by the
learned editor with great elegance, and equal probability, it is hoped
that the insertion of it will be more agreeable to the reader, than a
dull pause of melancholy regret.
Section I.
[a] Justus Fabius was consul A. U. C. 864, A. D. 111. But as he did not
begin the year, his name does not appear in the FASTI CONSULARES.
There are two letters to him from his friend Pliny; the first, lib. i.
epist. 11; the other, lib. vii. ep. 2. it is remarkable, that in the
last, the author talks of sending some of his writings for his
friend's perusal; _quæram quid potissimum ex nugis meis tibi
exhibeam_; but not a word is said about the decline of eloquence.
Section II.
[a] Concerning Maternus nothing is known with any kind of certainty.
Dio relates that a sophist, of that name, was put to death by
Domitian, for a school declamation against tyrants: but not one of the
commentators ventures to assert that he was the _Curiatius Maternus_,
who makes so conspicuous a figure in the Dialogue before us.
[b] No mention is made of Marcus Aper, either by Quintilian or Pliny.
It is supposed that he was father of Marcus Flavius Aper, who was
substituted consul A. U. C. 883, A. D. 130. His oratorical character, and
that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not
unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he
says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he
wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the
good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on
the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater
magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void
of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their
popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not
knowing them. _Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam
existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum
hominum in omni genere prudentiam Græcis anteferre. Antonius autem
probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omninò didicisse
nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter
contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Græcos videretur. _ Cicero _De Orat. _
lib. ii. cap. 1.
[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he
had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to
posterity among the most celebrated orators. He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some
degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable
name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with
grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed
his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate;
and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy
with which his meaning was conveyed. _Julio Secundo, si longior
contigisset ætas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros
foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, cæteris virtutibus suis,
quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et
sæpius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Cæterum interceptus
quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum
dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quæ assumpta sunt, proprietas;
tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia. _ Quintil. lib.
x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman
orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The
Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men
who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have
been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth
recording.
Section III.
[a] Thyestes was a common and popular subject of ancient tragedy.
Indignatur item privatis, et prope socco
Dignis carminibus narrari coena Thyestæ.
HORAT. ARS POET. ver. 90.
[b] It was the custom of the colonies and municipal towns, to pay
their court to some great orator at Rome, in order to obtain his
patronage, whenever they should have occasion to apply to the senate
for a redress of grievances.
[c] Domitius was another subject of tragedy, taken from the Roman
story. Who he was, does not clearly appear. Brotier thinks it was
Domitius, the avowed enemy of Julius Cæsar, who moved in the senate
for a law to recall that general from the command of the army in Gaul,
and, afterwards, on the breaking out of the civil war, fell bravely
at the battle of Pharsalia. See Suetonius, Life of Nero, section 2.
Such a character might furnish the subject of a tragedy. The Roman
poets were in the habit of enriching their drama with domestic
occurrences, and the practice was applauded by Horace.
Nec minimum meruêre decus, vestigia Græca
Ausi deserere, et celebrare domestica facta.
ARS POET. ver. 286.
No path to fame our poets left untried;
Nor small their merit, when with conscious pride
They scorn'd to take from Greece the storied theme,
But dar'd to sing their own domestic fame.
FRANCIS'S HORACE.
Section V.
[a] There were at Rome several eminent men of the name of Bassus.
With regard to the person here called Saleius Bassus, the commentators
have not been able to glean much information. Some have contended that
it was to him Persius addressed his sixth satire:
Admovit jam bruma foco te, Basse, Sabino.
But if we may believe the old scholiast, his name was CÆSIUS BASSUS, a
much admired lyric poet, who was living on his own farm, at the time
when Mount Vesuvius discharged its torrents of fire, and made the
country round a scene of desolation. The poet and his house were
overwhelmed by the eruption of the lava, which happened A. U. 832, in
the reign of Titus. Quintilian says of him (b. x. chap. 1. ), that if
after Horace any poet deserves to be mentioned, Cæsius Bassus was the
man. _Si quem adjicere velis, is erit Cæsius Bassus. _ Saleius Bassus
is mentioned by Juvenal as an eminent poet in distress:
----At Serrano tenuique Saleio
Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est?
SAT. vii. ver. 80.
But to poor Bassus what avails a name,
To starve on compliments and empty fame!
DRYDEN'S JUVENAL.
Quintilian says, he possessed a poetic genius, but so warm and
vehement, that, even in an advanced age, his spirit was not under the
control of sober judgement. _Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEII
BASSI fuit; nec ipsum senectute maturum. _ This passage affords an
insuperable argument against Lipsius, and the rest of the critics who
named Quintilian as a candidate for the honour of this elegant
composition. Can it be imagined that a writer of fair integrity, would
in his great work speak of Bassus as he deserved, and in the Dialogue
overrate him beyond all proportion? Duplicity was not a part of
Quintilian's character.
[b] Tacitus, it may be presumed with good reason, was a diligent
reader of Cicero, Livy, Sallust, and Seneca. He has, in various parts
of his works, coincidences of sentiment and diction, that plainly shew
the source from which they sprung. In the present case, when he calls
eloquence a buckler to protect yourself, and a weapon to annoy your
adversary, can anyone doubt but he had his eye on the following
sentence in _Cicero de Oratore_? _Quid autem tam necessarium, quam
tenere semper arma, quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis, vel provocare
integros, et te ulcisci lacessitus? _
[c] Eprius Marcellus is often a conspicuous figure in the Annals and
the History of Tacitus. To a bad heart he united the gift of
eloquence. In the Annals, b. xvi. s. 28, he makes a vehement speech
against Pætus Thrasea, and afterwards wrought the destruction of that
excellent man. For that exploit, he was attacked, in the beginning of
Vespasian's reign, by Helvidius Priscus. In the History (book iv. s. 7
and 8) we see them both engaged in a violent contention. In the
following year (823), Helvidius in the senate opened an accusation in
form; but Marcellus, by using his eloquence as his buckler and his
offensive weapon, was able to ward off the blow. He rose from his
seat, and, "I leave you," he said, "I leave you to give the law to the
senate: reign, if you will, even in the presence of the prince. " See
Hist. iv. s. 43. See also, Life of Agricola, s. 11. notes a and b.
Section VI.
[a] To be rich and have no issue, gave to the person so circumstanced
the highest consequence at Rome. All ranks of men paid their court to
him.
