No More Learning

Who dethroned and banished a powerful monarch [Tarquinius], the son of an illustrious sovereign? Who settled the State, which he had rescued from arbitrary power, by the appointment of an annual magistracy, a regular system of laws, and a free and open course of justice? And who abrogated the authority of his colleague [Collatinus], that he might rid the city of the smallest vestige of the regal name? - Events, which could never have been produced without exerting the powers of persuasion! - [54] We are likewise informed that a few years after the expulsion of the kings, when the plebeians retired to the banks of the Anio, about three miles from the city, and had possessed themselves of what is called the Mons Sacer, M. Valerius the dictator appeased their fury by a public harangue; for which he was afterwards rewarded with the highest posts of honour, and was the first Roman who was distinguished by the surname of Maximus. Nor can L. Valerius Potitus be supposed to have been destitute of the powers of utterance, who, after the odium which had been excited against the patricians by the tyrannical government of the decemviri , reconciled the people to the senate, by his prudent laws and conciliatory speeches. [55] L We may likewise suppose, that Appius Claudius was a man of some eloquence; since he dissuaded the senate from consenting to a peace with King Pyrrhus, though they were much inclined to it. The same might be said of Caius Fabricius, who was dispatched to Pyrrhus to treat for the ransom of his captive fellow-citizens; and of Titus Coruncanius, who appears by the memoirs of the pontifical college, to have been a person of no contemptible genius: and likewise of M'. Curius (then a tribune of the people) who, when the interrex Appius the Blind, an artful speaker, held the comitia contrary to law, by refusing to admit any consuls of plebeian rank, prevailed upon the senate to protest against the conduct of his antagonist; which, if we consider that the Maenian law was not then in being, was a very bold attempt.

[56] We may also conjecture, that M. Popilius was a man of abilities, who, in the time of his consulship [359 B. C. ], when he was solemnizing a public sacrifice in the proper habit of his office, (for he was also a Flamen Carmentalis) hearing of the mutiny and insurrection of the people against the Senate, rushed immediately into the midst of the assembly, covered as he was with his sacerdotal robes, and quelled the sedition by his authority and the force of his eloquence. I do not pretend to have read that the persons I have mentioned were then reckoned orators, or that any fort of reward or encouragement was given to eloquence: I only conjecture what appears very probable. [57] L It is also recorded, that C. Flaminius, who, when tribune of the people proposed the law for dividing the conquered territories of the Gauls and Piceni among the citizens, and who, after his promotion to the consulship [217 B. C. ], was slain near the lake Trasimenus, became very popular by the mere force of his speaking. Quintus Maximus Verrucosus was likewise reckoned a good speaker by his contemporaries; as was also Quintus Metellus, who, in the second Punic war, was joint consul with L. Veturius Philo [206 B. C. ]. But the first person we have any certain account of, who was publicly distinguished as an orator, and who really appears to have been such, was M. Cornelius Cethegus; whose eloquence is attested by Q. Ennius, a witness of the highest credibility; since he actually heard him speak, and gave him this character after his death; so that there is no reason to suspect that he was prompted by the warmth of his friendship to exceed the bounds of truth. [58] In his ninth book of Annals, he has mentioned him in the following terms:
Additur orator Corneliu' suaviloquenti
Ore Cethegus Marcu', Tuditano collega,
Marci Filius.

"Add the orator M. Cornelius Cethegus, so much admired for his mellifluent tongue; who was the colleague of Tuditanus, and the son of Marcus. "

He expressly calls him an orator, you see, and attributes to him a remarkable sweetness of speech; which, even now a-days, is an excellence of which few are possessed: for some of our modern orators are so insufferably harsh, that they may rather be said to bark than to speak. But what the poet so much admires in his friend, may certainly be considered as one of the principal ornaments of eloquence. He adds;
is dictus, ollis popularibus olim,
Qui tum vivebant homines, atque aevum agitabant,
Flos delibatus populi.

"He was called by his contemporaries, the choicest Flower of the State. "

[59] L A very elegant compliment! for as the glory of a man is the strength of his mental capacity, so the brightest ornament of that is eloquence; in which, whoever had the happiness to excel, was beautifully styled, by the ancients, the Flower of the State; and, as the poet immediately subjoins,
Suadaeque medulla:

"the very marrow and quintessence of Persuasion. "

That which the Greeks call Peitho [Persuasion] and which it is the chief business of an orator to effect, is here called Suada by Ennius; and of this he commends Cethegus as the quintessence; so that he makes the Roman orator to be himself the very substance of that amiable goddess, who is said by Eupolis to have dwelt on the lips of Pericles. [60] This Cethegus was joint-consul with P. Tuditanus in the second Punic war [204 B. C. ]; at which time also M. Cato was quaestor, about one hundred and forty years before I myself was promoted to the consulship [63 B. C. ]; which circumstance would have been absolutely lost, if it had not been recorded by Ennius; and the memory of that illustrious citizen, as has probably been the case of many others, would have been obliterated by the rust of antiquity. The manner of speaking which was then in vogue, may easily be collected from the writings of Naevius: for Naevius died, as we learn from the memoirs of the times, when the persons above-mentioned were consuls; though Varro, a most accurate investigator of historical truth, thinks there is a mistake in this, and fixes the death of Naevius something later. For Plautus died in the consulship of P. Claudius and L. Porcius [184 B. C. ], twenty years after the consulship of the persons we have been speaking of, and when Cato was censor. [61] L Cato, therefore, must have been younger than Cethegus, for he was consul nine years after him [195 B. C. ]: but we always consider him as a person of the remotest antiquity, though he died in the consulship of Lucius Marcius and M'. Manilius [149 B. C. ], and but eighty-three years before my own promotion to the same office. He is certainly, however, the most ancient orator we have, whose writings may claim our attention; unless any one is pleased with the above-mentioned speech of Appius, on the peace with Pyrrhus, or with a set of panegyrics on the dead, which, I own, are still extant. [62] For it was customary in most families of note to preserve their images, their trophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when any of the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, or prove their own nobility. But the truth of history has been much corrupted by these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in them which never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession of consulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rank were confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if I myself should pretend that I am descended from M'. Tullius, who was a patrician, and shared the consulship with Servius Sulpicius, about ten years after the expulsion of the kings [500 B. C. ].

[63] L But the real speeches of Cato are almost as numerous as those of Lysias the Athenian; a great number of whose are still extant. For Lysias was certainly an Athenian; because he not only died but received his birth at Athens, and served all the offices of the city; though Timaeus, as if he acted by the Licinian or the Mucian law, remands him back to Syracuse. There is, however, a manifest resemblance between his character and that of Cato: for they are both of them distinguished by their acuteness, their elegance, their agreeable humour, and their brevity. [64] But the Greek has the happiness to be most admired: for there are some who are so extravagantly fond of him, as to prefer a graceful air to a vigorous constitution, and who are perfectly satisfied with a slender and an easy shape, if it is only attended with a moderate share of health. It must, however, be acknowledged, that even Lysias often displays a strength of arm, than which nothing can be more strenuous and forcible; though he is certainly, in all respects, of a more thin and feeble habit than Cato, notwithstanding he has so many admirers, who are charmed with his very slenderness. [65] L But as to Cato, where will you find a modern orator who condescends to read him? - nay, I might have said, who has the least knowledge of him? - And yet, good Gods! what a wonderful man! I say nothing of his merit as a citizen, a senator, and a general; we must confine our attention to the orator. Who, then, has displayed more dignity as a panegyrist? - more severity as an accuser? - more ingenuity in the turn of his sentiments? - or more neatness and address in his narratives and explanations? Though he composed above a hundred and fifty orations, (which I have seen and read) they are crowded with all the beauties of language and sentiment. Let us select from these what deserves our notice and applause: they will supply us with all the graces of oratory. [66] Not to omit his Origins, who will deny that these also are adorned with every flower, and with all the lustre of eloquence? and yet he has scarcely any admirers; which some ages ago was the case of Philistus the Syracusan, and even of Thucydides himself. For as the lofty and elevated style of Theopompus soon diminished the reputation of their pithy and laconic harangues, which were sometimes scarcely intelligible through their excessive brevity and quaintness; and as Demosthenes eclipsed the glory of Lysias, so the pompous and stately elocution of the moderns has obscured the lustre of Cato.

[67] L But many of us are shamefully ignorant and inattentive; for we admire the Greeks for their antiquity, and what is called their Attic neatness, and yet have never noticed the same quality in Cato. It was the distinguishing character, say they, of Lysias and Hypereides. I own it, and I admire them for it: but why not allow a share of it to Cato? [68] They are fond, they tell us, of the Attic style of eloquence: and their choice is certainly judicious, provided they borrow the blood and the healthy juices, as well as the bones and membranes. What they recommend, however, is, to do it justice, an agreeable quality. But why must Lysias and Hypereides be so fondly courted, while Cato is entirely overlooked? His language indeed has an antiquated air, and some of his expressions are rather too harsh and crabbed. But let us remember that this was the language of the time: only change and modernize it, which it was not in his power to do;- add the improvements of rhythm and cadence, give an easier turn to his sentences, and regulate the structure and connection of his words, (which was as little practised even by the older Greeks as by him) and you will discover no one who can claim the preference to Cato. [69] L The Greeks themselves acknowledge that the chief beauty of composition results from the frequent use of those mutated forms of expression which they call tropes, and of those various attitudes of language and sentiment which they call schemata [figures]: but it is almost incredible in what numbers, and with what amazing variety, they are all employed by Cato. I know, indeed, that he is not sufficiently polished, and that recourse must be had to a more perfect model for imitation: for he is an author of such antiquity, that he is the oldest now extant, whose writings can be read with patience; and the ancients in general acquired a much greater reputation in every other art, than in that of speaking. [70] But who that has seen the statues of the moderns, will not perceive in a moment, that the figures of Canachus are too stiff and formal, to resemble life? Those of Calamis, though evidently harsh, are somewhat softer. Even the statues of Myron are not sufficiently alive; and yet you would not hesitate to pronounce them beautiful. But those of Polycletes are much finer, and, in my mind, completely finished. The case is the same in painting; for in the works of Zeuxis, Polygnotus, Timanthes, and several other masters who confined themselves to the use of four colours, we commend the air and the symmetry of their figures; but in Aetion, Nicomachus, Protogenes, and Apelles, every thing is finished to perfection. [71] L This, I believe, will hold equally true in all the other arts; for there is not one of them which was invented and perfected at the same time. I cannot doubt, for instance, that there were many poets before Homer: we may infer it from those very songs which he himself informs us were sung at the feasts of the Phaeacians, and of the profligate suitors of Penelope. Nay, to go no farther, what is become of the ancient poems of our own countrymen?
Such as the Fauns and rustic Bards composed,
When none the rocks of poetry had crossed,
Nor wished to form his style by rules of art,
Before this venturous man: . . .

Old Ennius here speaks of himself; nor does he carry his boast beyond the bounds of truth: the case being really as he describes it. For we had only an Odyssey in Latin, which resembled one of the rough and unfinished statues of Daedalus; and some dramatic pieces of Livius, which will scarcely bear a second reading. [72] This Livius exhibited his first performance at Rome in the consulship of M. Tuditanus, and C. Claudius the son of Caecus [240 B. C. ], the year before Ennius was born, and, according to the account of my friend Atticus, (whom I choose to follow) the five hundred and fourteenth from the founding of the city. But historians are not agreed about the date of the year. Accius informs us that Livius was taken prisoner at Tarentum by Quintus Maximus in his fifth consulship [209 B. C. ], about thirty years after he is said by Atticus, and our ancient annals, to have introduced the drama. [73] L He adds that he exhibited his first dramatic piece about eleven years after, in the consulship of C. Cornelius and Q. Minucius [197 B. C. ], at the public games which Salinator had vowed to Juventas [youth] for his victory at Sena. But in this, Accius was so far mistaken, that Ennius, when the persons above-mentioned were Consuls, was forty years old: so that if Livius was of the same age, as in this case he would have been, the first dramatic author we had must have been younger than Plautus and Naevius, who had exhibited a great number of plays before the time he specifies. [74] If these remarks, my Brutus, appear unsuitable to the subject before us, you must throw the whole blame upon Atticus, who has inspired me with a strange curiosity to enquire into the age of illustrious men, and the respective times of their appearance. "

"On the contrary," said Brutus, "I am highly pleased that you have carried your attention so far; and I think your remarks well adapted to the curious task you have undertaken, the giving us a history of the different classes of orators in their proper order. "

[75] L "You understand me right," said I; "and I heartily wish those venerable odes were still extant, which Cato informs us in his Origins, used to be sung by every guest in his turn at the homely feasts of our ancestors, many ages before, to commemorate the feats of their heroes. But the Punic war of that antiquated poet [Naevius], whom Ennius so proudly ranks among the Fauns and rustic Bards, affords me as exquisite a pleasure as the finest statue that was ever formed by Myron. [76] Ennius, I allow, was a more finished writer: but if he had really undervalued the other, as he pretends to do, he would scarcely have omitted such a bloody war as the first Punic war, when he attempted professedly to describe all the wars of the Republic. Nay he himself assigns the reason:
Others that cruel war have sung.

Very true, and they have sung it with great order and precision, though not, indeed, in such elegant strains as yourself. This you ought to have acknowledged, as you must certainly be conscious that you have borrowed many ornaments from Naevius; or if you refuse to own it, I shall tell you plainly that you have pilfered them.

[77] L Contemporary with the Cato above-mentioned (though somewhat older) were C. Flaminius, C. Varro, Q. Maximus, Q. Metellus, P. Lentulus, and P. Crassus who was joint Consul with the elder Africanus [205 B. C. ]. This Scipio, we are told, was not destitute of the powers of eloquence: but his son, who adopted the younger Scipio (the son of Paulus Aemilius) would have stood foremost in the list of orators, if he had possessed a firmer constitution. This is evident from a few speeches, and a Greek History of his, which are very agreeably written. [78] In the same class we may place Sextus Aelius, who was the best lawyer of his time, and a ready speaker. A little after these, was C. Sulpicius Gallus, who was better acquainted with Greek literature than all the rest of the nobility, and was reckoned a graceful orator, being equally distinguished, in every other respect, by the superior elegance of his taste; for a more copious and splendid way of speaking began now to prevail. When this Sulpicius, in quality of praetor, was celebrating the public shows in honour of Apollo, died the poet Ennius, in the consulship of Q. Marcius and Cn. Servilius [169 B. C. ], after exhibiting his tragedy of Thyestes. [79] L At the same time lived Tiberius Gracchus, the son of Publius, who was twice consul and censor: a Greek oration of his to the Rhodians is still extant, and he bore the character of a worthy citizen, and an eloquent speaker. We are likewise told that P. Scipio Nasica, surnamed Corculum [darling of the People], and who also had the honour to be twice chosen consul and censor, was esteemed an able orator: To him we may add L. Lentulus, who was joint Consul with C. Figulus [156 B. C. ];- Q. Nobilior, the son of Marcus, who was inclined to the study of literature by his father's example, and presented Ennius (who had served under his father in Aetolia) with the freedom of the City, when he founded a colony in quality of triumvir: and his colleague, T. Annius Luscus, who is said to have been tolerably eloquent. [80] We are likewise informed that L. Paulus, the father of Africanus, defended the character of an eminent citizen in a public speech; and that Cato, who died in the 85th year of his age, was then living, and actually pleaded, that very year, against the defendant Servius Galba in an assembly of the people, with great energy and spirit:- he has left a copy of this oration behind him. But when Cato was in the decline of life, a crowd of orators, all younger than himself, made their appearance at the same time: [81] L For A. Albinus, who wrote a History in Greek, and shared the consulship with L. Lucullus [151 B. C. ], was greatly admired for his learning and eloquence: and almost equal to him were Servius Fulvius, and Servius Fabius Pictor, the latter of whom was well acquainted with the laws of his country, its literature, and its ancient history. Quintus Fabius Labeo was likewise adorned with the same accomplishments. But Q. Metellus whose four sons attained the consular dignity, was admired for his eloquence beyond the rest;- he undertook the defence of L. Cotta, when he was accused by Africanus,- and composed many other speeches, particularly that against Tiberius Gracchus, which we have a full account of in the Annals of C. Fannius.

[82] L. Cotta himself was likewise reckoned an experienced performer; but C. Laelius, and P. Africanus were allowed by all to be more finished speakers: their orations are still extant, and may serve as specimens of their respective abilities. But Servius Galba, who was something older than any of them, was indisputably the best speaker of the age. He was the first among the Romans who displayed the proper and distinguishing talents of an orator, such as, digressing from his subject to embellish and diversify it,- soothing or alarming the passions, exhibiting every circumstance in the strongest light,- imploring the compassion of his audience, and artfully enlarging on those topics, or general principles of prudence or morality, on which the stress of his argument depended: and yet, I know not how, though he is allowed to have been the greatest orator of his time, the orations he has left are more lifeless, and have a more antiquated air, than those of Laelius, or Scipio, or even of Cato himself: in short, the strength and substance of them has so far evaporated, that we have scarcely any thing of them remaining but the bare skeletons.

[83] L In the same manner, though both Laelius and Scipio are greatly extolled for their abilities; the preference was given to Laelius as a speaker; and yet his oration, in defence of the privileges of the Sacerdotal College, has no greater merit than any one you may please to fix upon of the numerous speeches of Scipio. Nothing, indeed, can be sweeter and milder than that of Laelius, nor could any thing have been urged with greater dignity to support the honour of religion: but, of the two, Laelius appears to me to be rougher, and more old-fashioned than Scipio; and, as different speakers have different tastes, he had in my mind too strong a relish for antiquity, and was too fond of using obsolete expressions. [84] But such is the jealousy of mankind, that they will not allow the same person to be possessed of too many perfections. For as in military prowess they thought it impossible that any man could vie with Scipio, though Laelius had not a little distinguished himself in the war with Viriathus; so for learning, eloquence, and wisdom, though each was allowed to be above the reach of any other competitor, they adjudged the preference to Laelius. Nor was this only the opinion of the world, but it seems to have been allowed by mutual consent between themselves: [85] L for it was then a general custom, as candid in this respect as it was fair and just in every other, to give his due to each. I accordingly remember that P. Rutilius Rufus once told me at Smyrna, that when he was a young man, the two Consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus [138 B. C. ], by order of the Senate, tried a capital cause of great consequence. For several persons of note having been murdered in the Silan Forest, and the servants, and some of the sons, of a company of gentlemen who farmed the taxes of the pitch-manufactory, being charged with the deed, the consuls were ordered to try the cause in person. [86] Laelius, he said, spoke very sensibly and elegantly, as indeed he always did, on the side of the farmers of the taxes. But the consuls, after hearing both sides, judging it necessary to refer the matter to a second trial, the same Laelius, a few days after, pleaded their cause again with more accuracy, and much better than at first. The affair, however, was once more put off for a further hearing. Upon this, when his clients attended Laelius to his own house, and, after thanking him for what he had already done, earnestly begged him not to be disheartened by the fatigue he had suffered;- he assured them he had exerted his utmost to defend their reputation; but frankly added, that he thought their cause would be more effectually supported by Servius Galba, whose manner of speaking was more embellished and more spirited than his own. They, accordingly, by the advice of Laelius, requested Galba to undertake it. [87] L To this he consented; but with the greatest modesty and reluctance, out of respect to the illustrious advocate he was going to succeed:- and as he had only the next day to prepare himself, he spent the whole of it in considering and digesting his cause. When the day of trial was come, Rutilius himself, at the request of the defendants, went early in the morning to Galba, to give him notice of it, and conduct him to the court in proper time. But till word was brought that the consuls were going to the bench, he confined himself in his study, where he suffered no one to be admitted; and continued very busy in dictating to his secretaries, several of whom (as indeed he often used to do) he kept fully employed at once. While he was thus engaged, being informed that it was high time for him to appear in court, he left his house with so much life in his eyes, and such an ardent glow upon his countenance, that you would have thought he had not only prepared his cause, but actually carried it. [88] Rutilius added, as another circumstance worth noticing, that his scribes, who attended him to the bar, appeared excessively fatigued: from whence he thought it probable that he was equally warm and vigorous in the composition, as in the delivery of his speeches. But to conclude the story, Galba pleaded his cause before Laelius himself, and a very numerous and attentive audience, with such uncommon force and dignity, that every part of his oration received the applause of his hearers: and so powerfully did he move the feelings, and affect the pity of the judges, that his clients were immediately acquitted of the charge, to the satisfaction of the whole court.

[89] L As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an orator, are to be neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and forcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his audience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse them; we may conjecture from the above narrative, which I was favoured with by Rutilius, that Laelius was most admired for his elegance, and Galba for his passionate force. But this force of his was most remarkably exerted, when, having as praetor put to death some Lusitanians, contrary (it was believed) to his previous and express engagement;- L. Libo the tribune aroused the people against him, and presented a bill which was to operate against his conduct as a subsequent law. M.
Cato (as I have before mentioned) though extremely old, spoke in support of the bill with great vehemence; which speech he inserted in his Book of Origins, a few days, or at most only a month or two, before his death. [90] On this occasion, Galba refusing to plead to the charge, and submitting his fate to the generosity of the people, recommended his children to their protection, with tears in his eyes; and particularly his young ward the son of C. Gallus Sulpicius his deceased friend, whose orphan state and piercing cries, which were the more regarded for the sake of his illustrious father, excited their pity in a wonderful manner;- and thus (as Cato informs us in his History) he escaped the flames which would otherwise have consumed him, by employing the children to move the compassion of the people. I likewise find (what may be easily judged from his orations still extant) that his prosecutor Libo was a man of some eloquence. "

[91] L As I concluded these remarks with a short pause;- "What can be the reason," said Brutus, "if there was so much merit in the oratory of Galba, that there is no trace of it to be seen in his orations;- a circumstance which I have no opportunity to be surprised at in others, who have left nothing behind them in writing. "

"The reasons," said I, "why some have not written any thing, and others not so well as they spoke, are very different. Some of our orators have written nothing through mere indolence, and because they were loath to add a private fatigue to a public one: for most of the orations we are now possessed of were written not before they were spoken, but some time afterwards. [92] Others did not choose the trouble of improving themselves; to which nothing more contributes than frequent writing; and as to perpetuating the fame of their eloquence, they thought it unnecessary; supposing that their eminence in that respect was sufficiently established already, and that it would be rather diminished than increased by submitting any written specimen of it to the arbitrary test of criticism. Some also were aware that they spoke much better than they were able to write; which is generally the case of those who have a great genius, but little learning, such as Servius Galba. [93] L When he spoke, he was perhaps so much animated by the force of his abilities, and the natural warmth and impetuosity of his temper, that his language was rapid, bold, and striking; but afterwards, when he took up the pen in his leisure hours, and his passion had sunk into a calm, his eloquence became dull and languid. This indeed can never happen to those whose only aim is to be neat and polished; because an orator may always be master of that discretion which will enable him both to speak and write in the same agreeable manner: but no man can revive at pleasure the ardour of his passions; and when that has once subsided, the fire and pathos of his language will be extinguished. [94] This is the reason why the calm and easy spirit of Laelius seems still to breathe in his writings, whereas the force of Galba is entirely withered and lost.

"We may also reckon in the number of middling orators, the two brothers L. and Sp. Mummius, both whose orations are still in being:- the style of Lucius is plain and antiquated; but that of Spurius, though equally unembellished, is more close, and compact; for he was well versed in the doctrine of the Stoics. The orations of Sp. Albinus, their contemporary, are very numerous: and we have several by L. and C. Aurelius Orestes, who were esteemed indifferent speakers. [95] L P. Popilius also was a worthy citizen, and had a tolerable share of utterance: but his son Caius was really eloquent. To these we may add C. Tuditanus, who was not only very polished, and refined, in his manners and appearance, but had an elegant turn of expression; and of the same class was M. Octavius, a man of inflexible constancy in every just and laudable measure; and who, after being affronted and disgraced in the most public manner, defeated his rival Tiberius Gracchus by the mere dint of his perseverance. But M. Aemilius Lepidus, who was surnamed Porcina, and flourished at the same time as Galba, though he was indeed something younger, was esteemed an orator of the first eminence; and really appears, from his orations which are still extant, to have been a masterly writer. [96] For he was the first speaker, among the Romans, who gave us a specimen of the easy gracefulness of the Greeks; and who was distinguished by the measured flow of his language, and a style regularly polished and improved by art. His manner was carefully studied by C. Carbo and Tib. Gracchus, two accomplished youths who were nearly of an age: but we must defer their character as public speakers, till we have finished our account of their elders. For Q. Pompeius, according to the style of the time, was no contemptible orator; and actually raised himself to the highest honours of the state by his own personal merit, and without being recommended, as usual, by the quality of his ancestors.

Following sections (97-180) →

Attalus' home page | 03. 04. 14 | Any comments?

back
Cicero : Brutus, a History of Famous Orators
Sections 97-180

Translated by E. Jones (1776); a few words and spellings have been changed. See key to translations for an explanation of the format.

← Previous sections (1-96)
[97] L Lucius Cassius too derived his influence, which was very considerable, not indeed from his eloquence, but from his manly way of speaking: for it is remarkable that he made himself popular, not, as others did, by his complaisance and liberality, but by the gloomy rigour and severity of his manners. His law for collecting the votes of the people by way of ballot, was strongly opposed by the tribune M. Antius Briso, who was supported by M. Lepidus one of the consuls [137 B. C. ]: and it was afterwards objected to Africanus, that Briso dropped the opposition by his advice. At this time the two Scipios were very serviceable to a number of clients by their superior judgment, and eloquence; but still more so by their extensive interest and popularity. But the written speeches of Pompeius (though it must be owned they have rather an antiquated air) reveal an amazing sagacity, and are very far from being dry and spiritless.

[98] To these we must add P. Crassus, an orator of uncommon merit, who was qualified for the profession by the united efforts of art and nature, and enjoyed some other advantages which were almost peculiar to his family. For he had contracted an affinity with that accomplished speaker Servius Galba above-mentioned, by giving his daughter in marriage to Galba's son; and being likewise himself the son of Mucius, and the brother of P. Scaevola, he had a fine opportunity at home (which he made the best use of) to gain a thorough knowledge of the civil law. He was a man of unusual application, and was much beloved by his fellow-citizens; being constantly employed either in giving his advice, or pleading causes in the forum. [99] L Contemporary with the speakers I have mentioned were the two C. Fannii, the sons of Caius and Marcus - one of whom, (the son of Caius) who was joint consul with Domitius [122 B. C. ], has left us an excellent speech against Gracchus, who proposed the admission of the Latin and Italian allies to the freedom of Rome. "

"Do you really think, then," said Atticus, "that Fannius was the author of that oration? For when we were young, there were different opinions about it. Some asserted it was wrote by C. Persius, a man of letters, and the same who is so much extolled for his learning by Lucilius: and others believed it was the joint production of a number of noblemen, each of whom contributed his best to complete it. "

[100] "This I remember," said I; "but I could never persuade myself to agree with either of them. Their suspicion, I believe, was entirely founded on the character of Fannius, who was only reckoned among the middling orators; whereas the speech in question is esteemed the best which the time afforded. But, on the other hand, it is too much of a piece to have been the mingled composition of many: for the flow of the periods, and the turn of the language, are perfectly similar, throughout the whole of it. - and as to Persius, if he had composed it for Fannius to pronounce, Gracchus would certainly have taken some notice of it in his reply; because Fannius rallies Gracchus pretty severely, in one part of it, for employing Menelaus of Marathus, and several others, to manufacture his speeches. We may add that Fannius himself was no contemptible orator: for he pleaded a number of causes, and his tribunate, which was chiefly conducted under the management and direction of P. Africanus, was very far from being an idle one. But the other C. Fannius, (the son of Marcus and son-in-law of C. Laelius), was of a rougher cast, both in his temper, and manner of speaking. [101] L By the advice of his father-in-law, (of whom, by the bye, he was not remarkably fond, because he had not voted for his admission into the college of augurs, but gave the preference to his younger son-in-law Q. Scaevola; though Laelius politely excused himself, by saying that the preference was not given to the youngest son, but to his wife the eldest daughter,) by his advice, I say, he attended the lectures of Panaetius. His abilities as a speaker may be easily conjectured from his History, which is neither destitute of elegance, nor a perfect model of composition. [102] As to his brother Mucius the augur, whenever he was called upon to defend himself, he always pleaded his own cause; as, for instance, in the action which was brought against him for bribery by T. Albucius. But he was never ranked among the orators; his chief merit being a critical knowledge of the civil law, and an uncommon accuracy of judgment. L. Caelius Antipater likewise (as you may see by his works) was an elegant and a handsome writer for the time he lived in; he was also an excellent lawyer, and taught the principles of jurisprudence to many others, particularly to L. Crassus.

[103] L As to Caius Carbo and T. Gracchus, I wish they had been as well inclined to maintain peace and good order in the State, as they were qualified to support it by their eloquence: their glory would then have been out-rivalled by no one. But the latter, for his turbulent tribunate, which he entered upon with a heart full of resentment against the great and good, on account of the odium he had brought upon himself by the treaty of Numantia, was slain by the hands of the republic: and the other, being impeached of a seditious affectation of popularity, rescued himself from the severity of the judges by a voluntary death. [104] That both of them were excellent speakers, is very plain from the general testimony of their contemporaries: for as to their speeches now extant, though I allow them to be very artful and judicious, they are certainly defective in eloquence. Gracchus had the advantage of being carefully instructed by his mother Cornelia from his very childhood, and his mind was enriched with all the stores of Greek literature: for he was constantly attended by the ablest masters from Greece, and particularly, in his youth, by Diophanes of Mytilene, who was the most eloquent Greek of his age: but though he was a man of uncommon genius, he had but a short time to improve and display it. [105] L As to Carbo, his whole life was spent in trials, and forensic debates. He is said by very sensible men who heard him, and, among others, by our friend L. Gellius who lived in his family in the time of his consulship [120 B. C. ], to have been a sonorous, a fluent, and a spirited speaker, and likewise, upon occasion, very passionate, very engaging, and excessively humorous: Gellius used to add, that he applied himself very closely to his studies, and bestowed much of his time in writing and private declamation. [106] He was, therefore, esteemed the best pleader of his time; for no sooner had he began to distinguish himself in the Forum, but the depravity of the age gave birth to a number of law-suits; and it was first found necessary, in the time of his youth, to settle the form of public trials, which had never been done before. We accordingly find that L. Piso, then a tribune of the people, was the first who proposed a law against bribery; which he did when Censorinus and Manilius were consuls [149 B. C. ]. This Piso too was a professed pleader, and the proposer and opposer of a great number of laws: he left some orations behind him, which are now lost, and a Book of Annals very indifferently written. But in the public trials, in which Carbo was concerned, the assistance of an able advocate had become more necessary than ever, in consequence of the law for voting by ballots, which was proposed and carried by L. Cassius, in the consulship of Lepidus and Mancinus [137 B. C. ].

[107] L I have likewise been often assured by the poet Accius, (an intimate friend of his) that your ancestor D. Brutus, the son of Marcus, was no inelegant speaker; and that for the time he lived in, he was well versed both in the Greek and Roman literature. He ascribed the same accomplishments to Q. Maximus, the grandson of L. Paulus: and added that, a little prior to Maximus, the Scipio, by whose instigation (though only in a private capacity) T. Gracchus was assassinated, was not only a man of great ardour in all other respects, but very warm and spirited in his manner of speaking. [108] P. Lentulus too, the Father of the Senate, had a sufficient share of eloquence for an honest and useful magistrate. About the same time L. Furius Philus was thought to speak our language as elegantly, and more correctly than any other man; P. Scaevola to be very artful and judicious, and rather more fluent than Philus; M'. Manilius to possess almost an equal share of judgment with the latter; and Appius Claudius to be equally fluent, but more warm and passionate. M. Fulvius Flaccus, and C. Cato the nephew of Africanus, were likewise tolerable orators: some of the writings of Flaccus are still in being, in which nothing, however, is to be seen but the mere scholar. P. Decius was a professed rival of Flaccus; he too was not destitute of eloquence; but his style, as well as his temper, was too violent. [109] L M. Drusus, the son of Caius, who, in his tribunate, thwarted his colleague Gracchus (then raised to the same office a second time) was a nervous speaker, and a man of great popularity: and next to him was his brother C. Drusus. Your kinsman also, my Brutus, (M. Pennus) successfully opposed the tribune Gracchus, who was something younger than himself. For Gracchus was quaestor, and Pennus (the son of that

back
Cicero : Brutus, a History of Famous Orators
Sections 181-258

Translated by E. Jones (1776); a few words and spellings have been changed. See key to translations for an explanation of the format.

← Previous lines (97-180)
[181] L I am aware, however, that in the account I have been giving, I have included many who were neither real, nor reputed orators; and that I have omitted others, among those of a remoter date, who well deserved not only to have been mentioned, but to be recorded with honour. But this I was forced to do, for want of better information: for what could I say concerning men of a distant age, none of whose productions are now remaining, and of whom no mention is made in the writings of other people? But I have omitted none of those who have fallen within the compass of my own knowledge, or that I myself remember to have heard. [182] For I wish to make it appear, that in such a powerful and ancient republic as ours, in which the greatest rewards have been proposed to eloquence, though all have desired to be good speakers, not many have attempted the talk, and but very few have succeeded. But I shall give my opinion of every one in such explicit terms, that it may be easily understood whom I consider as a mere declaimer, and whom as an orator.

About the same time, or rather something later than the above-mentioned Julius, but almost contemporary with each other, were C. Cotta, P. Sulpicius, Q. Varius, Cn. Pomponius, C. Curio, L. Fufius, M. Drusus, and P. Antistius; for no age whatsoever has been distinguished by a more numerous progeny of orators. [183] L Of these, Cotta and Sulpicius, both in my opinion, and in that of the public at large, had an evident claim to the preference. "

"But wherefore," interrupted Atticus, "do you say, in your own opinion, and in that of the public at large? In deciding the merits of an orator, does the opinion of the vulgar, think you, always coincide with that of the learned? Or rather does not one receive the approbation of the populace, while another of a quite opposite character is preferred by those who are better qualified to give their judgment? "

"You have started a very pertinent question," said I; "but, perhaps, the public at large will not approve my answer to it. "

[184] "And what concern need that give you," replied Atticus, "if it meets the approbation of Brutus? "

"Very true," said I; "for I had rather my sentiments on the qualifications of an orator would please you and Brutus, than all the world besides: but as to my eloquence, I should wish this to please every one. For he who speaks in such a manner as to please the people, must inevitably receive the approbation of the learned. As to the truth and propriety of what I hear, I am indeed to judge of this for myself, as well as I am able: but the general merit of an orator must and will be decided by the effects which his eloquence produces. [185] L For (in my opinion at least) there are three things which an orator should be able to effect: to inform his hearers, to please them, and to move their passions. By what qualities in the speaker each of these, effects may be produced, or by what deficiencies they are either lost, or but imperfectly performed, is an enquiry which none but an artist can resolve: but whether an audience is really so affected by an orator as shall best answer his purpose, must be left to their own feelings, and the decision of the public. The learned, therefore, and the people at large, have never disagreed about who was a good orator, and who was otherwise. [186] For do you suppose, that while the speakers above-mentioned were in being, they had not the same degree of reputation among the learned as among the populace? If you had enquired of one of the latter, who was the most eloquent man in the city, he might have hesitated whether to say Antonius or Crassus; or this man, perhaps, would have mentioned the one, and that the other. But would any one have given the preference to Philippus, though otherwise a smooth, a sensible, and a facetious speaker? - that Philippus whom we, who form our judgment upon these matters by rules of art, have decided to have been the next in merit? Nobody would, I am certain. For it is the invariable property of an accomplished orator, to be reckoned such in the opinion of the people.

[187] L Though Antigenidas, therefore, the musician, might say to his pupil, who was but coldly received by the public, Play on, to please me and the Muses;- I shall say to my friend Brutus, when he mounts the rostra, as he frequently does,- Play to me and the people;- that those who hear him may be sensible of the effect of his eloquence, while I can likewise amuse myself with remarking the causes which produce it. When a citizen hears an able orator, he readily credits what is said;- he imagines every thing to be true, he believes and relishes the force of it; and, in short, the persuasive language of the speaker wins his absolute, his hearty assent. You, who are possessed of a critical knowledge of the art, what more will you require? [188] The listening multitude is charmed and captivated by the force of his eloquence, and feels a pleasure which is not to be resisted. What here can you find to censure? The whole audience is either flushed with joy, or overwhelmed with grief;- it smiles, or weeps,- it loves, or hates,- it scorns or envies,- and, in short, is alternately seized with the various emotions of pity, shame, remorse, resentment, wonder, hope, and fear, according as it is influenced by the language, the sentiments, and the action of the speaker. In this case, what necessity is there to await the sanction of a critic? For here, whatever is approved by the feelings of the people, must be equally so by men of taste and erudition: and, in this instance of public decision, there can be no disagreement between the opinion of the vulgar, and that of the learned. [189] L For though many good speakers have appeared in every species of oratory, which of them who was thought to excel the rest in the judgment of the populace, was not approved as such by every man of learning? or which of our ancestors, when the choice of a pleader was left to his own option, did not immediately fix it either upon Crassus or Antonius? There were certainly many others to be had: but though any person might have hesitated to which of the above two he should give the preference, there was nobody, I believe, who would have made choice of a third. And in the time of my youth, when Cotta and Hortensius were in such high reputation, who, that had liberty to choose for himself, would have employed any other? "

[190] "But what occasion is there," said Brutus, "to quote the example of other speakers to support your assertion? have we not seen what has always been the wish of the defendant, and what the judgment of Hortensius, concerning yourself? for whenever the latter shared a cause with you, (and I was often present on those occasions) the peroration, which requires the greatest exertion of the powers of eloquence, was constantly left to you. "

"It was," said I; "and Hortensius (induced, I suppose, by the warmth of his friendship) always resigned the post of honour to me. But, as to myself, what rank I hold in the opinion of the people I am unable to determine: as to others, however, I may safely assert, that such of them as were reckoned most eloquent in the judgment of the vulgar, were equally high in the estimation of the learned. [191] L For even Demosthenes himself could not have said what is related of Antimachus, a poet of Clarus, who, when he was rehearsing to an audience assembled for the purpose, that voluminous piece of his [Lyde] which you are well acquainted with, and was deserted by all his hearers except Plato, in the midst of his performance, cried out, 'I shall proceed notwithstanding; for Plato alone is of more consequence to me than many thousands. ' The remark was very just. For an abstruse poem, such as his, only requires the approbation of the judicious few; but a discourse intended for the people should be perfectly suited to their taste. If Demosthenes, therefore, after being deserted by the rest of his audience, had even Plato left to hear him, and no one else, I will answer for it, he could not have uttered another syllable. [192] Nay, or could you yourself, my Brutus, if the whole assembly was to leave you, as it once did Curio? "

"To open my whole mind to you," replied he, "I must confess that even in such causes as fall under the cognizance of a few select judges, and not of the people at large, if I was to be deserted by the casual crowd who came to hear the trial, I should not be able to proceed. "

"The case, then, is plainly this," said I: "as a flute, which will not return its proper sound when it is applied to the lips, would be laid aside by the musician as useless; so, the ears of the people are the instrument upon which an orator is to play: and if these refuse to admit the breath he bestows upon them, or if the hearer, like a restive horse, will not obey the spur, the speaker must cease to exert himself any farther. [193] L There is, however, the exception to be made; the people sometimes give their approbation to an orator who does not deserve it. But even here they approve what they have had no opportunity of comparing with something better: as, for instance, when they are pleased with an indifferent, or, perhaps, a bad speaker. His abilities satisfy their expectation: they have seen nothing preferable: and, therefore, the merit of the day, whatever it may happen to be, meets their full applause. For even a middling orator, if he is possessed of any degree of eloquence, will always captivate the ear; and the order and beauty of a good discourse has an astonishing effect upon the human mind.

[194] Accordingly, what common hearer who was present when Q. Scaevola pleaded for M. Coponius, in the cause above-mentioned, would have wished for, or indeed thought it possible to find any thing which was more correct, more elegant, or more complete? [195] L When he attempted to prove, that, as M'. Curius was left heir to the estate only in case of the death of his future ward before he came of age, he could not possibly be a legal heir, when the expected ward was never born;- what did he leave unsaid of the scrupulous regard which should be paid to the literal meaning of every testament? what of the accuracy and preciseness of the old and established forms of law? and how carefully did he specify the manner in which the will would have been expressed, if it had intended that Curius should be the heir in case of a total default of issue? [196] in what a masterly manner did he represent the ill consequences to the public, if the letter of a will should be disregarded, its intention decided by arbitrary conjectures, and the written bequests of plain illiterate men, left to the artful interpretation of a pleader? [197] L how often did he urge the authority of his father, who had always been an advocate for a strict adherence to the letter of a testament? and with what emphasis did he enlarge upon the necessity of supporting the common forms of law? All which particulars he discussed not only very artfully, and skilfully; but in such a neat,- such a close,- and, I may add, in so florid, and so elegant a style, that there was not a single person among the common part of the audience, who could expect any thing more complete, or even think it possible to exist. But when Crassus, who spoke on the opposite side, began with the story of a notable youth, who having found a rowlock as he was rambling along the shore, took it into his head immediately that he would build a ship for it;- and when he applied the tale to Scaevola, who, from one rowlock of an argument represented the decision of a private will to be a matter of such importance as to deserve he attention of the centumviri;- when Crassus, I say, in the beginning of his discourse, had thus taken off the edge of the strongest plea of his antagonist, he entertained his hearers with many other turns of a similar kind; and, in a short time, changed the serious apprehensions of all who were present into open mirth and good-humour; which is one of those three effects which I have just observed an orator should be able to produce. He then proceeded to remark that it was evidently the intention and the will of the testator, that in case, either by death, or default of issue, there should happen to be no son to fall to his charge, the inheritance should devolve to Curius:- that most people in a similar case would express themselves in the same manner, and that it would certainly stand good in law, and always had. By these, and many other observations of the same kind, he gained the assent of his hearers; which is another of the three duties of an orator. [198] Lastly, he supported, at all events, the true meaning and spirit of a will, against the literal construction: justly observing, that there would be an endless cavilling about words, not only in wills, but in all other legal deeds, if the real intention of the party was to be disregarded: and hinting very smartly, that his friend Scaevola had assumed a most unwarrantable degree of importance, if no person must afterwards presume to write down a legacy, but in the musty form which he himself might please to prescribe. As he enlarged on each of these arguments with great force and propriety, supported them by a number of precedents, exhibited them in a variety of views, and enlivened them with many occasional turns of wit and pleasantry, he gained so much applause, and gave such general satisfaction, that it was scarcely remembered that any thing had been said on the contrary side of the question. This was the third, and the most important duty we assigned to an orator.

"Here, if one of the people was to be judge, the same person who had heard the first speaker with a degree of admiration, would, on hearing the second, despise himself for his former want of judgment:- whereas a man of taste and erudition, on hearing Scaevola, would have observed that he was really master of a rich and ornamental style; but if, on comparing the manner in which each of them concluded his cause, it was to be enquired which of the two was the best orator, the decision of the man of learning would not have differed from that of the vulgar. [199] L What advantage, then, it will be said, has the skilful critic over the illiterate hearer?