No More Learning

_ _De Claris
Orat. _ s. 145. During the consulship of Sylla, A. U. C. 666, Cicero
being then in the nineteenth year of his age, and wishing to acquire a
competent knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, attached
himself to Mucius Scævola, who did not undertake the task of
instructing pupils, but, by conversing freely with all who consulted
him, gave a fair opportunity to those who thirsted after knowledge.
_Ego autem juris civilis studio, multum operæ dabam Q. Scævolæ, qui
quamquam nemini se ad docendum dabat, tamen, consulentibus
respondendo, studiosos audiendi docebat. _ _De Claris Orat. _ s. 306.

[c] Philo was a leading philosopher of the academic school. To avoid
the fury of Mithridates, who waged a long war with the Romans, he fled
from Athens, and, with some of the most eminent of his
fellow-citizens, repaired to Rome. Cicero was struck with his
philosophy, and became his pupil. _Cùm princeps academiæ Philo, cum
Atheniensium optimatibus, Mithridatico bello, domo profugisset,
Romamque venisset, totum ei me tradidi, admirabili quodam ad
philosophiam studio concitatus. _ _De Claris Orat. _ s. 306.

Cicero adds, that he gave board and lodging, at his own house, to
Diodotus the stoic, and, under that master, employed himself in
various branches of literature, but particularly in the study of
logic, which may be considered as a mode of eloquence, contracted,
close, and nervous. _Eram cum stoico Diodoto: qui cum habitavisset
apud me, mecumque vixisset, nuper est domi meæ mortuus. A quo, cum in
aliis rebus, tum studiosissime in dialecticâ exercebar, quæ quasi
contracta et adstricta eloquentia putanda est. _ _De Claris Orat. _ s.
309.

[d] Cicero gives an account of his travels, which he undertook, after
having employed two years in the business of the forum, where he
gained an early reputation. At Athens, he passed six months with
Antiochus, the principal philosopher of the old academy, and, under
the direction of that able master, resumed those abstract
speculations which he had cultivated from his earliest youth. Nor did
he neglect his rhetorical exercises. In that pursuit, he was assisted
by Demetrius, the Syrian, who was allowed to be a skilful preceptor.
He passed from Greece into Asia; and, in the course of his travels
through that country, he lived in constant habits with Menippus of
Stratonica; a man eminent for his learning; who, if to be neither
frivolous, nor unintelligible, is the character of Attic eloquence,
might fairly be called a disciple of that school. He met with many
other professors of rhetoric, such as Dionysius of Magnesia, Æschylus
of Cnidos, and Zenocles of Adramytus; but not content with their
assistance, he went to Rhodes, and renewed his friendship with MOLO,
whom he had heard at Rome, and knew to be an able pleader in real
causes; a fine writer, and a judicious critic, who could, with a just
discernment of the beauties as well as the faults of a composition,
point out the road to excellence, and improve the taste of his
scholars. In his attention to the Roman orator, the point he aimed at
(Cicero will not say that he succeeded) was, to lop away superfluous
branches, and confine within its proper channel a stream of
eloquence, too apt to swell above all bounds, and overflow its banks.
After two years thus spent in the pursuit of knowledge, and
improvement in his oratorical profession, Cicero returned to Rome
almost a new man. _Is (MOLO) dedit operam (si modo id consequi potuit)
ut nimis redundantes nos, et superfluentes juvenili quadam dicendi
impunitate, et licentiâ, reprimeret, et quasi extra ripas diffluentes
cœrceret. Ita recepi me biennio post, non modo exercitatior, sed propè
mutatus. _ See _De Claris Oratoribus_, s. 315 and 316.

[e] Cicero is here said to have been a complete master of philosophy,
which, according to Quintilian, was divided into three branches,
namely, physics, ethics, and logic. It has been mentioned in this
section, note [c], that Cicero called logic a contracted and close
mode of eloquence. That observation is fully explained by Quintilian.
Speaking of logic, the use, he says, of that contentious art, consists
in just definition, which presents to the mind the precise idea; and
in nice discrimination, which marks the essential difference of
things. It is this faculty that throws a sudden light on every
difficult question, removes all ambiguity, clears up what was
doubtful, divides, develops, and separates, and then collects the
argument to a point. But the orator must not be too fond of this close
combat. The minute attention, which logic requires, will exclude what
is of higher value; while it aims at precision, the vigour of the mind
is lost in subtlety. We often see men, who argue with wonderful craft;
but, when petty controversy will no longer serve their purpose, we see
the same men without warmth or energy, cold, languid, and unequal to
the conflict; like those little animals, which are brisk in narrow
places, and by their agility baffle their pursuers, but in the open
field are soon overpowered. _Hæc pars dialectica, sive illam dicere
malimus disputatricem, ut est utilis sæpe et finitionibus, et
comprehensionibus, et separandis quæ sunt differentia, et resolvendâ
ambiguitate, et distinguendo, dividendo, illiciendo, implicando; ita
si totum sibi vindicaverit in foro certamen, obstabit melioribus, et
sectas ad tenuitatem vires ipsâ subtilitate consumet. Itaque reperias
quosdam in disputando mirè callidos; cum ab illâ verò cavillatione
discesserint, non magis sufficere in aliquo graviori actu, quam parva
quædam animalia, quæ in angustiis mobilia, campo deprehenduntur. _
Quint. lib. xii. cap. 2.

Ethics, or moral philosophy, the same great critic holds to be
indispensably requisite. _Jam quidem pars illa moralis, quæ dicitur
ethice, certè tota oratori est accommodata. Nam in tantâ causarum
varietate, nulla ferè dici potest, cujus non parte aliquâ tractatus
æqui et boni reperiantur. _ Lib. xii. Unless the mind be enriched with
a store of knowledge, there may he loquacity, but nothing that
deserves the name of oratory. Eloquence, says Lord Bolingbroke, must
flow like a stream that is fed by an abundant spring, and not spout
forth a little frothy stream, on some gaudy day, and remain dry for
the rest of the year. See _Spirit of Patriotism_.

With regard to natural philosophy, Quintilian has a sentiment so truly
sublime, that to omit it in this place would look like insensibility.
If, says he, the universe is conducted by a superintending Providence,
it follows that good men should govern the nations of the earth. And
if the soul of man is of celestial origin, it is evident that we
should tread in the paths of virtue, all aspiring to our native
source, not slaves to passion, and the pleasures of the world. These
are important topics; they often occur to the public orator, and
demand all his eloquence. _Nam si regitur providentiâ mundus,
administranda certè bonis viris erit respublica. Si divina nostris
animis origo, tendendum ad virtutem, nec voluptatibus terreni corporis
serviendum. An hoc non frequenter tractabit orator? _ Quint. lib. xii.
cap. 2.


Section XXXI.

[a] Quintilian, as well as Seneca, has left a collection of
school-declamations, but he has given his opinion of all such
performances. They are mere imitation, and, by consequence, have not
the force and spirit which a real cause inspires. In public harangues,
the subject is founded in reality; in declamations, all is fiction.
_Omnis imitatio ficta est; quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium
declamationes habeant, quam orationes; quod in his vera, in illis
assimulata materia est. _ Lib. x. cap. 2. Petronius has given a lively
description of the rhetoricians of his time. The consequence, he says,
of their turgid style, and the pompous swell of sounding periods, has
ever been the same: when their scholars enter the forum, they look as
if they were transported into a new world. The teachers of rhetoric
have been the bane of all true eloquence. _Hæc ipsa tolerabilia
essent, si ad eloquentiam ituris viam facerent: nunc et rerum tumore,
et sententiarum vanissimo strepitu, hoc tantum proficiunt, ut quum in
forum venerint, putent se in alium terrarum orbem delatos. Pace vestrâ
liceat dixisse, primi omnium eloquentiam perdidistis. _ Petron. _in
Satyrico_, cap. 1 and 2. That gay writer, who passed his days in
luxury and voluptuous pleasures (see his character, _Annals_, b. xvi.
s. 18), was, amidst all his dissipation, a man of learning, and, at
intervals, of deep reflection. He knew the value of true philosophy,
and, therefore, directs the young orator to the Socratic school, and
to that plan of education which we have before us in the present
Dialogue. He bids his scholar begin with Homer, and there drink deep
of the Pierian spring: after that, he recommends the moral system;
and, when his mind is thus enlarged, he allows him to wield the arms
of Demosthenes.

----Det primos versibus annos,
Mæoniumque bibat felici pectore fontem:
Mox et Socratico plenus grege mutet habenas
Liber, et ingentis quatiat Demosthenis arma.

[b] Cicero has left a book, entitled TOPICA, in which he treats at
large of the method of finding proper arguments. This, he observes,
was executed by Aristotle, whom he pronounces the great master both of
invention and judgement. _Cum omnis ratio diligens disserendi duas
habeat partes; unam INVENIENDI, alteram JUDICANDI; utriusque princeps,
ut mihi quidem videtur, Aristoteles fuit. _ Ciceronis _Topica_, s. vi.
The sources from which arguments may be drawn, are called LOCI
COMMUNES, COMMON PLACES. To supply the orator with ample materials,
and to render him copious on every subject, was the design of the
Greek preceptor, and for that purpose he gave his TOPICA. _Aristoteles
adolescentes, non ad philosophorum morem tenuiter disserendi, sed ad
copiam rhetorum in utramque partem, ut ornatius et uberius dici
posset, exercuit; idemque locos (sic enim appellat) quasi argumentorum
notas tradidit, unde omnis in utramque partem traheretur oratio. _
Cicero, _De Oratore_. Aristotle was the most eminent of Plato's
scholars: he retired to a _gymnasium_, or place of exercise, in the
neighbourhood of Athens, called the _Lyceum_, where, from a custom,
which he and his followers observed, of discussing points of
philosophy, as they walked in the _porticos_ of the place, they
obtained the name of Peripatetics, or the walking philosophers. See
Middleton's _Life of Cicero_, vol. ii. p. 537, 4to edit.

[c] The academic sect derived its origin from Socrates, and its name
from a celebrated _gymnasium_, or place of exercise, in the suburbs of
Athens, called the _Academy_, after _Ecademus_, who possessed it in
the time of the _Tyndaridæ_. It was afterwards purchased, and
dedicated to the public, for the convenience of walks and exercises
for the citizens of Athens. It was gradually improved with
plantations, groves and porticos for the particular use of the
professors or masters of the academic school; where several of them
are said to have spent their lives, and to have resided so strictly,
as scarce ever to have come within the city. See Middleton's _Life of
Cicero_, 4to edit. vol. ii. p. 536. Plato, and his followers,
continued to reside in the porticos of the academy. They chose

----The green retreats
Of Academus, and the thymy vale,
Where, oft inchanted with Socratic sounds,
Ilyssus pure devolv'd his tuneful stream
In gentle murmurs.
AKENSIDE, PLEAS. OF IMAG.

For dexterity in argument, the orator is referred to this school, for
the reason given by Quintilian, who says that the custom of supporting
an argument on either side of the question, approaches nearest to the
orator's practice in forensic causes. _Academiam quidam utilissimam
credunt, quod mos in utramque partem disserendi ad exercitationem
forensium causarum proximè accedat. _ Lib. xii. cap. 2 Quintilian
assures us that we are indebted to the academic philosophy for the
ablest orators, and it is to that school that Horace sends his poet
for instruction:

Rem tibi Socraticæ poterunt ostendere chartæ,
Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.
ARS POET. ver. 310.

Good sense, that fountain of the muse's art,
Let the rich page of Socrates impart;
And if the mind with clear conception glow,
The willing words in just expressions flow.
FRANCIS'S HORACE.

[d] Epicurus made frequent use of the rhetorical figure called
exclamation; and in his life, by Diogenes Lærtius, we find a variety
of instances. It is for that manner of giving animation to a discourse
that Epicurus is mentioned in the Dialogue. For the rest, Quintilian
tells us what to think of him. Epicurus, he says, dismisses the orator
from his school, since he advises his pupil to pay no regard to
science or to method. _Epicurus imprimis nos a se ipse dimittit, qui
fugere omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima jubet. _ Lib.
xii. cap. 2. Metrodorus was the favourite disciple of Epicurus.
Brotier says that a statue of the master and the scholar, with their
heads joined together, was found at Rome in the year 1743.

It is worthy of notice, that except the stoics, who, without aiming at
elegance of language, argued closely and with vigour, Quintilian
proscribes the remaining sects of philosophers. Aristippus, he says,
placed his _summum bonum_ in bodily pleasure, and therefore could be
no friend to the strict regimen of the accomplished orator. Much less
could Pyrrho be of use, since he doubted whether there was any such
thing in existence as the judges before whom the cause must be
pleaded. To him the party accused, and the senate, were alike
non-entities. _Neque vero Aristippus, summum in voluptate corpora
bonum ponens, ad hunc nos laborem adhortetur. Pyrrho quidem, quas in
hoc opere partes habere potest? cui judices esse apud quos verba
faciat, et reum pro quo loquatur, et senatum, in quo sit dicenda
sententia, non liquebat. _ Quintil. lib. xii. cap. 2.


Section XXXII.

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


Section XXXIII.

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


Section XXXIV.

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


Section XXXV.

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

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

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

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


SUPPLEMENT.

Section 1.

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


Section 2.

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


Section 3.

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


Section 4.

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

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

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


Section 5.

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


Section 6.

[a] This charge against Seneca is by no means new. Quintilian was his
contemporary; he saw and heard the man, and, in less than twenty
years after his death, pronounced judgement against him. In the
conclusion of the first chapter of his tenth book, after having given
an account of the Greek and Roman authors, he says, he reserved Seneca
for the last place, because, having always endeavoured to counteract
the influence of a bad taste, he was supposed to be influenced by
motives of personal enmity. But the case was otherwise. He saw that
Seneca was the favourite of the times, and, to check the torrent that
threatened the ruin of all true eloquence, he exerted his best efforts
to diffuse a sounder judgement. He did not wish that Seneca should be
laid aside: but he could not in silence see him preferred to the
writers of the Augustan age, whom that writer endeavoured to
depreciate, conscious that, having chosen a different style, he could
not hope to please the taste of those who were charmed with the
authors of a former day. But Seneca was still in fashion; his
partisans continued to admire, though it cannot be said that they
imitated him. He fell short of the ancients, and they were still more
beneath their model. Since they were content to copy, it were to be
wished that they had been able to vie with him. He pleased by his
defects, and the herd of imitators chose the worst. They acquired a
vicious manner, and flattered themselves that they resembled their
master. But the truth is, they disgraced him. Seneca, it must be
allowed, had many great and excellent qualities; a lively imagination,
vast erudition, and extensive knowledge. He frequently employed others
to make researches for him, and was often deceived. He embraced all
subjects; in his philosophy, not always profound, but a keen censor of
the manners, and on moral subjects truly admirable. He has brilliant
passages, and beautiful sentiments; but the expression is in a false
taste, the more dangerous, as he abounds with delightful vices. You
would have wished that he had written with his own imagination, and
the judgement of others. To sum up his character; had he known how to
rate little things, had he been above the petty ambition of always
shining, had he not been fond of himself, had he not weakened his
force by minute and dazzling sentences, he would have gained, not the
admiration of boys, but the suffrage of the judicious. At present he
may be read with safety by those who have made acquaintance with
better models. His works afford the fairest opportunity of
distinguishing the beauties of fine writing from their opposite vices.
He has much to be approved, and even admired: but a just selection is
necessary, and it is to be regretted that he did not choose for
himself. Such was the judgement of Quintilian: the learned reader
will, perhaps, be glad to have the whole passage in the author's
words, rather than be referred to another book. _Ex industriâ Senecam,
in omni genere eloquentiæ versatum, distuli, propter vulgatam falso de
me opinionem, quâ damnare eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditus.
Quod, accidit mihi, dum corruptum, et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi
genus revocare ad severiora judicia contendo. Tum autem solus hic fere
in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quem non equidem omnino conabar
excutere, sed potioribus præferri non sinebam, quos ille non
destiterat incessere, cum, diversi sibi conscius generis, placere se
in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent, diffideret. Amabant autem
eum magis, quàm imitabantur; tantumque ab illo defluebant, quantum
ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum, pares, aut saltem
proximos, illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia, et ad ea
se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quæ poterat. Deinde cum se jactaret
eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cujus et multæ alioqui et magnæ
virtutes fuerunt; ingenium facile et copiosum; plurimum studii; et
multarum rerum cognitio, in quâ tamen aliquando ab iis, quibus
inquirenda quædam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractavit etiam omnem ferè
studiorum materiam; In philosophiâ parum diligens, egregius tamen
vitiorum insectator. Multa in eo claræque sententiæ; multa etiam morum
gratiâ legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo
perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis. Velles eum suo ingenio
dixisse, alieno judicio. Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum
concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset; si rerum pondera minutissimis
sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quàm puerorum
amore comprobaretur. Verùm sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore
genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest
utrimque judicium. Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam
admiranda sunt; eligere modo curæ sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. _
Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in
the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand
corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this
Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind
with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of
France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how
to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained
metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the
blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his
own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has
been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general
depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance,
traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the
age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young
fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette:
_Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos_; he adds, that such affected
finery is not the true ornament of a man. _Non est ornamentum virile,
concinnitas. _ And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was
sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something
new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth
and dignified simplicity. The marvellous was with him better than the
natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the
approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of
the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes
to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the
corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's _Belles Lettres_, vol.
i. _sur le Gout_. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given
an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that
work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of
eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the
matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for
wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the
false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was,
undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.
His fault was, exuberance. _Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere_,
says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's
subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he
bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is
witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to
and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and
little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.
With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and
manner infected every branch of literature. The tribe of imitators had
not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite
of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the
natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He
tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever
introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad
writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste
goes round from one to another. _Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub
quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. _
Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing
himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age.
_Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum.