{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9776/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9776","id":"gutenberg_9776","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9776","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Classical Antiquity","Oratory -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Anne Soulard, Ted Garvin, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCICERO'S BRUTUS,\n\nOR\n\nHISTORY OF FAMOUS ORATORS:\n\nALSO,\n\nHIS ORATOR,\n\nOR\n\nACCOMPLISHED SPEAKER.\n\nNow first translated into English by E. Jones\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nAs the following Rhetorical Pieces have never appeared before in the\nEnglish language, I thought a Translation of them would be no unacceptable\noffering to the Public. The character of the Author (Marcus Tullius\nCicero) is so universally celebrated, that it would be needless, and\nindeed impertinent, to say any thing to recommend them.\n\nThe first of them was the fruit of his retirement, during the remains of\nthe _Civil War_ in Africa; and was composed in the form of a Dialogue. It\ncontains a few short, but very masterly sketches of all the Speakers\nwho had flourished either in Greece or Rome, with any reputation of\nEloquence, down to his own time; and as he generally touches the principal\nincidents of their lives, it will be considered, by an attentive reader,\nas a _concealed epitome of the Roman history_. The conference is supposed\nto have been held with Atticus, and their common friend Brutus, in\nCicero's garden at Rome, under the statue of Plato, whom he always\nadmired, and usually imitated in his dialogues: and he seems in this to\nhave copied even his _double titles_, calling it _Brutus, or the History\nof famous Orators_. It was intended as a _supplement_, or _fourth book_,\nto three former ones, on the qualifications of an Orator.\n\nThe second, which is intitled _The Orator_, was composed a very short time\nafterwards (both of them in the 61st year of his age) and at the request\nof Brutus. It contains a plan, or critical delineation, of what he himself\nesteemed the most finished Eloquence, or style of Speaking. He calls it\n_The Fifth Part, or Book_, designed to complete his _Brutus_, and _the\nformer three_ on the same subject. It was received with great approbation;\nand in a letter to Lepta, who had complimented him upon it, he declares,\nthat whatever judgment he had in Speaking, he had thrown it all into that\nwork, and was content to risk his reputation on the merit of it. But it is\nparticularly recommended to our curiosity, by a more exact account of the\nrhetorical _composition_, or _prosaic harmony_ of the ancients, than is to\nbe met with in any other part of his works.\n\nAs to the present Translation, I must leave the merit of it to be decided\nby the Public; and have only to observe, that though I have not, to my\nknowledge, omitted a single sentence of the original, I was obliged, in\nsome places, to paraphrase my author, to render his meaning intelligible\nto a modern reader. My chief aim was to be clear and perspicuous: if I\nhave succeeded in _that_, it is all I pretend to. I must leave it to abler\npens to copy the _Eloquence_ of Cicero. _Mine_ is unequal to the task.\n\n\n\n\nBRUTUS, OR THE HISTORY OF ELOQUENCE.\n\n\nWhen I had left Cilicia, and arrived at Rhodes, word was brought me of the\ndeath of Hortensius. I was more affected with it than, I believe, was\ngenerally expected. For, by the loss of my friend, I saw myself for ever\ndeprived of the pleasure of his acquaintance, and of our mutual\nintercourse of good offices. I likewise reflected, with Concern, that the\ndignity of our College must suffer greatly by the decease of such an\neminent augur. This reminded me, that _he_ was the person who first\nintroduced me to the College, where he attested my qualification upon\noath; and that it was _he_ also who installed me as a member; so that I\nwas bound by the constitution of the Order to respect and honour him as a\nparent. My affliction was increased, that, in such a deplorable dearth of\nwife and virtuous citizens, this excellent man, my faithful associate in\nthe service of the Public, expired at the very time when the Commonwealth\ncould least spare him, and when we had the greatest reason to regret the\nwant of his prudence and authority. I can add, very sincerely, that in\n_him_ I lamented the loss, not (as most people imagined) of a dangerous\nrival and competitor, but of a generous partner and companion in the\npursuit of same. For if we have instances in history, though in studies of\nless public consequence, that some of the poets have been greatly\nafflicted at the death of their contemporary bards; with what tender\nconcern should I honour the memory of a man, with whom it is more glorious\nto have disputed the prize of eloquence, than never to have met with an\nantagonist! especially, as he was always so far from obstructing _my_\nendeavours, or I _his_, that, on the contrary, we mutually assisted each\nother, with our credit and advice.\n\nBut as _he_, who had a perpetual run of felicity, left the world at a\nhappy moment for himself, though a most unfortunate one for his fellow-\ncitizens; and died when it would have been much easier for him to lament\nthe miseries of his country, than to assist it, after living in it as long\nas he _could_ have lived with honour and reputation;--we may, indeed,\ndeplore his death as a heavy loss to _us_ who survive him. If, however, we\nconsider it merely as a personal event, we ought rather to congratulate\nhis fate, than to pity it; that, as often as we revive the memory of this\nillustrious and truly happy man, we may appear at least to have as much\naffection for him as for ourselves. For if we only lament that we are no\nlonger permitted to enjoy him, it must, indeed, be acknowledged that this\nis a heavy misfortune to _us_; which it, however, becomes us to support\nwith moderation, less our sorrow should be suspected to arise from motives\nof interest, and not from friendship. But if we afflict ourselves, on the\nsupposition that _he_ was the sufferer;--we misconstrue an event, which to\n_him_ was certainly a very happy one.\n\nIf Hortensius was now living, he would probably regret many other\nadvantages in common with his worthy fellow-citizens. But when he beheld\nthe Forum, the great theatre in which he used to exercise his genius, no\nlonger accessible to that accomplished eloquence, which could charm the\nears of a Roman, or a Grecian audience; he must have felt a pang of which\nnone, or at least but few, besides himself, could be susceptible. Even _I_\nam unable to restrain my tears, when I behold my country no longer\ndefensible by the genius, the prudence, and the authority of a legal\nmagistrate,--the only weapons which I have learned to weild, and to which\nI have long been accustomed, and which are most suitable to the character\nof an illustrious citizen, and of a virtuous and well-regulated state.\n\nBut if there ever was a time, when the authority and eloquence of an\nhonest individual could have wrested their arms from the hands of his\ndistracted fellow-citizens; it was then when the proposal of a compromise\nof our mutual differences was rejected, by the hasty imprudence of some,\nand the timorous mistrust of others. Thus it happened, among other\nmisfortunes of a more deplorable nature, that when my declining age, after\na life spent in the service of the Public, should have reposed in the\npeaceful harbour, not of an indolent, and a total inactivity, but of a\nmoderate and becoming retirement; and when my eloquence was properly\nmellowed, and had acquired its full maturity;--thus it happened, I say,\nthat recourse was then had to those fatal arms, which the persons who had\nlearned the use of them in honourable conquest, could no longer employ to\nany salutary purpose. Those, therefore, appear to me to have enjoyed a\nfortunate and a happy life, (of whatever State they were members, but\nespecially in _our's_) who held their authority and reputation, either for\ntheir military or political services, without interruption: and the sole\nremembrance of them, in our present melancholy situation, was a pleasing\nrelief to me, when we lately happened to mention them in the course of\nconversation.\n\nFor, not long ago, when I was walking for my amusement, in a private\navenue at home, I was agreeably interrupted by my friend Brutus, and T.\nPomponius, who came, as indeed they frequently did, to visit me;--two\nworthy citizens who were united to each other in the closest friendship,\nand were so dear and so agreeable to me, that, on the first sight of them,\nall my anxiety for the Commonwealth subsided. After the usual\nsalutations,--\"Well, gentlemen,\" said I, \"how go the times? What news have\nyou brought?\" \"None,\" replied Brutus, \"that you would wish to hear, or\nthat I can venture to tell you for truth.\"--\"No,\" said Atticus; \"we are\ncome with an intention that all matters of state should be dropped; and\nrather to hear something from you, than to say any thing which might serve\nto distress you.\" \"Indeed,\" said I, \"your company is a present remedy for\nmy sorrow; and your letters, when absent, were so encouraging, that they\nfirst revived my attention to my studies.\"--\"I remember,\" replied\nAtticus, \"that Brutus sent you a letter from Asia, which I read with\ninfinite pleasure: for he advised you in it like a man of sense, and gave\nyou every consolation which the warmest friendship could suggest.\"--\n\"True,\" said I, \"for it was the receipt of that letter which recovered me\nfrom a growing indisposition, to behold once more the cheerful face of\nday; and as the Roman State, after the dreadful defeat near Cannae, first\nraised its drooping head by the victory of Marcellus at Nola, which was\nsucceeded by many other victories; so, after the dismal wreck of our\naffairs, both public and private, nothing occurred to me before the letter\nof my friend Brutus, which I thought to be worth my attention, or which\ncontributed, in any degree, to the anxiety of my heart.\"--\"That was\ncertainly my intention,\" answered Brutus; \"and if I had the happiness to\nsucceed, I was sufficiently rewarded for my trouble. But I could wish to\nbe informed, what you received from Atticus which gave you such uncommon\npleasure.\"--\"That,\" said I, \"which not only entertained me; but, I hope,\nhas restored me entirely to myself.\"--\"Indeed!\" replied he; \"and what\nmiraculous composition could that be?\"--\"Nothing,\" answered I; \"could have\nbeen a more acceptable, or a more seasonable present, than that excellent\nTreatise of his which roused me from a state of languor and despondency.\"\n--\"You mean,\" said he, \"his short, and, I think, very accurate abridgment\nof Universal History.\"--\"The very same,\" said I; \"for that little Treatise\nhas absolutely saved me.\"--\"I am heartily glad of it,\" said Atticus; \"but\nwhat could you discover in it which was either new to you, or so\nwonderfully beneficial as you pretend?\"--\"It certainly furnished many\nhints,\" said I, \"which were entirely new to me: and the exact order of\ntime which you observed through the whole, gave me the opportunity I had\nlong wished for, of beholding the history of all nations in one regular\nand comprehensive view. The attentive perusal of it proved an excellent\nremedy for my sorrows, and led me to think of attempting something on your\nown plan, partly to amuse myself, and partly to return your favour, by a\ngrateful, though not an equal acknowledgment. We are commanded, it is\ntrue, in that precept of Hesiod, so much admired by the learned, to return\nwith the same measure we have received; or, if possible, with a larger. As\nto a friendly inclination, I shall certainly return you a full proportion\nof it; but as to a recompence in kind, I confess it to be out of my power,\nand therefore hope you will excuse me: for I have no first-fruits (like a\nprosperous husbandman) to acknowledge the obligation I have received; my\nwhole harvest having sickened and died, for want of the usual manure: and\nas little am I able to present you with any thing from those hidden stores\nwhich are now consigned to perpetual darkness, and to which I am denied\nall access; though, formerly, I was almost the only person who was able to\ncommand them at pleasure. I must therefore, try my skill in a long-\nneglected and uncultivated soil; which I will endeavour to improve with so\nmuch care, that I may be able to repay your liberality with interest;\nprovided my genius should be so happy as to resemble a fertile field,\nwhich, after being suffered to lie fallow a considerable time, produces a\nheavier crop than usual.\"--\"Very well,\" replied Atticus, \"I shall expect\nthe fulfilment of your promise; but I shall not insist upon it till it\nsuits your convenience; though, after all, I shall certainly be better\npleased if you discharge the obligation.\"--\"And I also,\" said Brutus,\n\"shall expect that you perform your promise to my friend Atticus: nay,\nthough I am only his voluntary solicitor, I shall, perhaps, be very\npressing for the discharge of a debt, which the creditor himself is\nwilling to submit to your own choice.\"--\"But I shall refuse to pay you,\"\nsaid I, \"unless the original creditor takes no farther part in the suit.\"\n--\"This is more than I can promise,\" replied he, \"for I can easily\nforesee, that this easy man, who disclaims all severity, will urge his\ndemand upon you, not indeed to distress you, but yet very closely and\nseriously.\"--\"To speak ingenuously,\" said Atticus, \"my friend Brutus, I\nbelieve, is not much mistaken: for as I now find you in good spirits, for\nthe first time, after a tedious interval of despondency, I shall soon make\nbold to apply to you; and as this gentleman has promised his assistance,\nto recover what you owe me, the least I can do is to solicit, in my turn,\nfor what is due to him.\"\n\n\"Explain your meaning,\" said I.--\"I mean,\" replied he, \"that you must\nwrite something to amuse us; for your pen has been totally silent this\nlong time; and since your Treatise on Politics, we have had nothing from\nyou of any kind; though it was the perusal of that which fired me with the\nambition to write an Abridgment of Universal History. But we shall,\nhowever, leave you to answer this demand, when, and in what manner you\nshall think most convenient. At present, if you are not otherwise engaged,\nyou must give us your sentiments on a subject on which we both desire to\nbe better informed.\"--\"And what is that?\" said I.--\"What you gave me a\nhasty sketch of,\" replied he, \"when I saw you last at Tusculanum,--the\nHistory of Famous Orators;--_when_ they made their appearance, and _who_\nand _what_ they were; which, furnished such an agreeable train of\nconversation, that when I related the substance of it to _your_, or I\nought rather to have said our _common_ friend, Brutus, he expressed a\nviolent desire to hear the whole of it from your own mouth. Knowing you,\ntherefore, to be at leisure, we have taken the present opportunity to wait\nupon you; so that, if it is really convenient, you will oblige us both by\nresuming the subject.\"--\"Well, gentlemen,\" said I, \"as you are so\npressing, I will endeavour to satisfy you in the best manner I am able.\"--\n\"You are _able_ enough,\" replied he; \"only unbend yourself a little, or,\nif you can set your mind at full liberty.\"--\"If I remember right,\" said I,\n\"Atticus, what gave rise to the conversation, was my observing, that the\ncause of Deiotarus, a most excellent Sovereign, and a faithful ally, was\npleaded by our friend Brutus, in my hearing, with the greatest elegance\nand dignity.\"--\"True,\" replied he, \"and you took occasion from the ill\nsuccess of Brutus, to lament the loss of a fair administration of justice\nin the Forum.\"--\"I did so,\" answered I, \"as indeed I frequently do: and\nwhenever I see you, my Brutus, I am concerned to think where your\nwonderful genius, your finished erudition, and unparalleled industry will\nfind a theatre to display themselves. For after you had thoroughly\nimproved your abilities, by pleading a variety of important causes; and\nwhen my declining vigour was just giving way, and lowering the ensigns of\ndignity to your more active talents; the liberty of the State received a\nfatal overthrow, and that Eloquence, of which we are now to give the\nHistory, was condemned to perpetual silence.\"--\"Our other misfortunes,\"\nreplied Brutus, \"I lament sincerely; and I think I ought to lament them:--\nbut as to Eloquence, I am not so fond of the influence and the glory it\nbestows, as of the study and the practice of it, which nothing can deprive\nme of, while you are so well disposed to assist me: for no man can be an\neloquent speaker, who has not a clear and ready conception. Whoever,\ntherefore, applies himself to the study of Eloquence, is at the same time\nimproving his judgment, which is a talent equally necessary in all\nmilitary operations.\"\n\n\"Your remark,\" said I, \"is very just; and I have a higher opinion of the\nmerit of eloquence, because, though there is scarcely any person so\ndiffident as not to persuade himself, that he either has, or may acquire\nevery other accomplishment which, formerly, could have given him\nconsequence in the State; I can find no person who has been made an orator\nby the success of his military prowess.--But that we may carry on the\nconversation with greater ease, let us seat ourselves.\"--As my visitors\nhad no objection to this, we accordingly took our seats in a private lawn,\nnear a statue of Plato.\n\nThen resuming the conversation,--\"to recommend the study of eloquence,\"\nsaid I, \"and describe its force, and the great dignity it confers upon\nthose who have acquired it, is neither our present design, nor has any\nnecessary connection with it. But I will not hesitate to affirm, that\nwhether it is acquired by art or practice, or the mere powers of nature,\nit is the most difficult of all attainments; for each of the five branches\nof which it is said to consist, is of itself a very important art; from\nwhence it may easily be conjectured, how great and arduous must be the\nprofession which unites and comprehends them all.\n\n\"Greece alone is a sufficient witness of this:--for though she was fired\nwith a wonderful love of Eloquence, and has long since excelled every\nother nation in the practice of it, yet she had all the rest of the arts\nmuch earlier; and had not only invented, but even compleated them, a\nconsiderable time before she was mistress of the full powers of elocution.\nBut when I direct my eyes to Greece, your beloved Athens, my Atticus,\nfirst strikes my sight, and is the brightest object in my view: for in\nthat illustrious city the _orator_ first made his appearance, and it is\nthere we shall find the earliest records of eloquence, and the first\nspecimens of a discourse conducted by rules of art. But even in Athens\nthere is not a single production now extant which discovers any taste for\nornament, or seems to have been the effort of a real orator, before the\ntime of Pericles (whose name is prefixed to some orations which still\nremain) and his cotemporary Thucydides; who flourished,--not in the\ninfancy of the State, but when it was arrived at its full maturity of\npower.\n\n\"It is, however, supposed, that Pisistratus (who lived many years before)\ntogether with Solon, who was something older, and Clisthenes, who survived\nthem both, were very able speakers for the age they lived in. But some\nyears after these, as may be collected from the Attic Annals, came the\nabove-mentioned Themistocles, who is said to have been as much\ndistinguished by his eloquence as by his political abilities;--and after\nhim the celebrated Pericles, who, though adorned with every kind of\nexcellence, was most admired for his talent of speaking. Cleon also (their\ncotemporary) though a turbulent citizen, was allowed to be a tolerable\norator.\n\n\"These were immediately succeeded by Alcibiades, Critias, and Theramenes,\nwhose manner of speaking may be easily inferred from the writings of\nThucydides, who lived at the same time: their discourses were nervous and\nstately, full of sententious remarks, and so excessively concise as to be\nsometimes obscure. But as soon as the force of a regular and a well-\nadjusted speech was understood, a sudden crowd of rhetoricians appeared,--\nsuch as Gorgias the Leontine, Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Protagoras\nthe Abderite, and Hippias the Elean, who were all held in great esteem,--\nwith many others of the same age, who professed (it must be owned, rather\ntoo arrogantly) to teach their scholars,--_how the worse might be made, by\nthe force of eloquence, to appear the better cause_. But these were openly\nopposed by the famous Socrates, who, by an adroit method of arguing which\nwas peculiar to himself, took every opportunity to refute the principles\nof their art. His instructive conferences produced a number of intelligent\nmen, and _Philosophy_ is said to have derived her birth from him;--not the\ndoctrine of _Physics_, which was of an earlier date, but that Philosophy\nwhich treats of men, and manners, and of the nature of good and evil. But\nas this is foreign to our present subject, we must defer the Philosophers\nto another opportunity, and return to the Orators, from whom I have\nventured to make a sort digression.\n\n\"When the professors therefore, abovementioned were in the decline of\nlife, Isocrates made his appearance, whos house stood open to all Greece\nas the _School of Eloquence_. He was an accomplished orator, and an\nexcellent teacher; though he did not display his talents in the Forum, but\ncherished and improved that glory within the walls of his academy, which,\nin my opinion, no poet has ever yet acquired. He composed many valuable\nspecimens of his art, and taught the principles of it to others; and not\nonly excelled his predecessors in every part of it, but first discovered\nthat a certain _metre_ should be observed in prose, though totally\ndifferent from the measured rhyme of the poets. Before _him_, the\nartificial structure and harmony of language was unknown;--or if there are\nany traces of it to be discovered, they appear to have been made without\ndesign; which, perhaps, will be thought a beauty:--but whatever it may be\ndeemed, it was, in the present case, the effect rather of native genius,\nor of accident, than of art and observation. For mere nature itself will\nmeasure and limit our sentences by a convenient compass of words; and when\nthey are thus confined to a moderate flow of expression, they will\nfrequently have a _numerous_ cadence:--for the ear alone can decide what\nis full and complete, and what is deficient; and the course of our\nlanguage will necessarily be regulated by our breath, in which it is\nexcessively disagreeable, not only to fail, but even to labour.\n\n\"After Isocrates came Lysias, who, though not personally engaged in\nforensic causes, was a very artful and an elegant composer, and such a one\nas you might almost venture to pronounce a complete orator: for\nDemosthenes is the man who approaches the character so nearly, that you\nmay apply it to him without hesitation. No keen, no artful turns could\nhave been contrived for the pleadings he has left behind him, which he did\nnot readily discover;--nothing could have been expressed with greater\nnicety, or more clearly and poignantly, than it has been already expressed\nby him;--and nothing greater, nothing more rapid and forcible, nothing\nadorned with a nobler elevation either of language, or sentiment, can be\nconceived than what is to be found in his orations. He was soon rivalled\nby his cotemporaries Hyperides, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Dinarchus, and\nDemades (none of whose writings are extant) with many others that might be\nmentioned: for this age was adorned with a profusion of good orators; and\nthe genuine strength and vigour of Eloquence appears to me to have\nsubsisted to the end of this period, which was distinguished by a natural\nbeauty of composition without disguise or affectation.\n\n\"When these orators were in the decline of life, they were succeeded by\nPhalereus; who was then in the prime of youth. He was indeed a man of\ngreater learning than any of them, but was fitter to appear on the parade,\nthan in the field; and, accordingly, he rather pleased and entertained the\nAthenians, than inflamed their passions; and marched forth into the dust\nand heat of the Forum, not from a weather-beaten tent, but from the shady\nrecesses of Theophrastus, a man of consummate erudition. He was the first\nwho relaxed the force of Eloquence, and gave her a soft and tender air:\nand he rather chose to be agreeable, as indeed he was, than great and\nstriking; but agreeable in such a manner as rather charmed, than warmed\nthe mind of the hearer. His greatest ambition was to impress his audience\nwith a high opinion of his elegance, and not, as Eupolis relates of\nPericles, to _sting_ as well as to _please_.\n\n\"You see, then, in the very city in which Eloquence was born and nurtured,\nhow late it was before she grew to maturity; for before the time of Solon\nand Pisistratus, we meet with no one who is so much as mentioned for his\ntalent of speaking. These, indeed, if we compute by the Roman date, may be\nreckoned very ancient; but if by that of the Athenians, we shall find them\nto be moderns. For though they flourished in the reign of Servius Tullius,\nAthens had then subsisted much longer than Rome has at present. I have\nnot, however, the least doubt that the power of Eloquence has been always\nmore or less conspicuous. For Homer, we may suppose, would not have\nascribed such superior talents of elocution to Ulysses, and Nestor (one of\nwhom he celebrates for his force, and the other for his sweetness) unless\nthe art of Speaking had then been held in some esteem; nor could the Poet\nhimself have been master of such an ornamental style, and so excellent a\nvein of Oratory as we actually find in him.--The time indeed in which he\nlived is undetermined: but we are certain that he flourished many years\nbefore Romulus: for he was at least of as early a date as the elder\nLycurgus, the legislator of the Spartans.\n\n\"But a particular attention to the art, and a greater ability in the\npractice of it, may be observed in Pisistratus. He was succeeded in the\nfollowing century by Themistocles, who, according to the Roman date, was a\nperson of the remotest antiquity; but, according to that of the Athenians,\nhe was almost a modern. For he lived when Greece was in the height of her\npower, but when the city of Rome had but lately freed herself from the\nshackles of regal tyranny;--for the dangerous war with the Volsci, who\nwere headed by Coriolanus (then a voluntary exile) happened nearly at the\nsame time as the Persian war; and we may add, that the fate of both\ncommanders was remarkably similar. Each of them, after distinguishing\nhimself as an excellent citizen, being driven from his country by the\nwrongs of an ungrateful people, went over to the enemy: and each of them\nrepressed the efforts of his resentment by a voluntary death. For though\nyou, my Atticus, have represented the exit of Coriolanus in a different\nmanner, you must give me leave to dispatch him in the way I have\nmentioned.\"--\"You may use your pleasure,\" replied Atticus with a smile:\n\"for it is the privilege of rhetoricians to exceed the truth of history,\nthat they may have an opportunity of embellishing the fate of their\nheroes: and accordingly, Clitarchus and Stratocles have entertained us\nwith the same pretty fiction about the death of Themistocles, which you\nhave invented for Coriolanus. Thucydides, indeed, who was himself an\nAthenian of the highest rank and merit, and lived nearly at the same time,\nhas only informed us that he died, and was privately buried in Attica,\nadding, that it was suspected by some that he had poisoned himself. But\nthese ingenious writers have assured us, that, having slain a bull at the\naltar, he caught the blood in a large bowl, and, drinking it off, fell\nsuddenly dead upon the ground. For this species of death had a tragical\nair, and might be described with all the pomp of rhetoric; whereas the\nordinary way of dying afforded no opportunity for ornament. As it will,\ntherefore, suit your purpose, that Coriolanus should resemble Themistocles\nin every thing, I give you leave to introduce the fatal bowl; and you may\nstill farther heighten the catastrophe by a solemn sacrifice, that\nCoriolanus may appear in all respects to have been a second Themistocles.\"\n\n\"I am much obliged to you,\" said I, \"for your courtesy: but, for the\nfuture, I shall be more cautious in meddling with History when you are\npresent; whom I may justly commend as a most exact and scrupulous relator\nof the Roman History; but nearly at the time we are speaking of (though\nsomewhat later) lived the above-mentioned Pericles, the illustrious son of\nXantippus, who first improved his eloquence by the friendly aids of\nliterature;--not that kind of literature which treats professedly of the\nart of Speaking, of which there was then no regular system; but after he\nhad studied under Anaxagoras the Naturalist, he easily transferred his\ncapacity from abstruse and intricate speculations to forensic and popular\ndebates.\n\n\"All Athens was charmed with the sweetness of his language; and not only\nadmired him for his fluency, but was awed by the superior force and the\n_terrors_ of his eloquence. This age, therefore, which may be considered\nas the infancy of the Art, furnished Athens with an Orator who almost\nreached the summit of his profession: for an emulation to shine in the\nForum is not usually found among a people who are either employed in\nsettling the form of their government, or engaged in war, or struggling\nwith difficulties, or subjected to the arbitrary power of Kings. Eloquence\nis the attendant of peace, the companion of ease and prosperity, and the\ntender offspring of a free and a well established constitution. Aristotle,\ntherefore, informs us, that when the Tyrants were expelled from Sicily,\nand private property (after a long interval of servitude) was determined\nby public trials, the Sicilians Corax and Tisias (for this people, in\ngeneral, were very quick and acute, and had a natural turn for\ncontroversy) first attempted to write precepts on the art of Speaking.\nBefore them, he says, there was no one who spoke by method, and rules of\nart, though there were many who discoursed very sensibly, and generally\nfrom written notes: but Protagoras took the pains to compose a number of\ndissertations, on such leading and general topics as are now called common\nplaces. Gorgias, he adds, did the same, and wrote panegyrics and\ninvectives on every subject: for he thought it was the province of an\nOrator to be able either to exaggerate, or extenuate, as occasion might\nrequire. Antiphon the Rhamnusian composed several essays of the same\nspecies; and (according to Thucydides, a very respectable writer, who was\npresent to hear him) pleaded a capital cause in his own defence, with as\nmuch eloquence as had ever yet been displayed by any man. But Lysias was\nthe first who openly professed the _Art_; and, after him, Theodorus, being\nbetter versed in the theory than the practice of it, begun to compose\norations for others to pronounce; but reserved the method of doing it to\nhimself. In the same manner, Isocrates at first disclaimed the Art, but\nwrote speeches for other people to deliver; on which account, being often\nprosecuted for assisting, contrary to law, to circumvent one or another of\nthe parties in judgment, he left off composing orations for other people,\nand wholly applied himself to writing rules and systems.\n\n\"Thus then we have traced the birth and origin of the Orators of Greece,\nwho were, indeed, very ancient, as I have before observed, if we compute\nby the Roman Annals; but of a much later date, if we reckon by their own:\nfor the Athenian State had signalized itself by a variety of great\nexploits, both at home and abroad, a considerable time before she was\nravished with the charms of Eloquence. But this noble Art was not common\nto Greece in general, but almost peculiar to Athens. For who has ever\nheard of an Argive, a Corinthian, or a Theban Orator at the times we are\nspeaking of? unless, perhaps, some merit of the kind may be allowed to\nEpaminondas, who was a man of uncommon erudition. But I have never read of\na Lacedemonian Orator, from the earliest period of time to the present.\nFor Menelaus himself, though said by Homer to have possessed a sweet\nelocution, is likewise described as a man of few words. Brevity, indeed,\nupon some occasions, is a real excellence; but it is very far from being\ncompatible with the general character of Eloquence.\n\n\"The Art of Speaking was likewise studied, and admired, beyond the limits\nof Greece; and the extraordinary honours which were paid to Oratory have\nperpetuated the names of many foreigners who had the happiness to excel in\nit. For no sooner had Eloquence ventured to sail from the Pireaeus, but\nshe traversed all the isles, and visited every part of Asia; till at last\nshe infected herself with their manners, and lost all the purity and the\nhealthy complexion of the Attic style, and indeed had almost forgot her\nnative language. The Asiatic Orators, therefore, though not to be\nundervalued for the rapidity and the copious variety of their elocution,\nwere certainly too loose and luxuriant. But the Rhodians were of a sounder\nconstitution, and more resembled the Athenians. So much, then, for the\nGreeks; for, perhaps, what I have already said of them, is more than was\nnecessary.\"\n\n\"As to the necessity of it,\" answered Brutus, \"there is no occasion to\nspeak of it: but what you have said of them has entertained me so\nagreeably, that instead of being longer, it has been much shorter than I\ncould have wished.\"--\"A very handsome compliment,\" said I;--\"but it is\ntime to begin with our own countrymen, of whom it is difficult to give any\nfurther account than what we are able to conjecture from our Annals.--For\nwho can question the address, and the capacity of Brutus, the illustrious\nfounder of your family? That Brutus, who so readily discovered the meaning\nof the Oracle, which promised the supremacy to him who should first salute\nhis mother? That Brutus, who concealed the most consummate abilities under\nthe appearance of a natural defect of understanding? Who dethroned and\nbanished a powerful monarch, the son of an illustrious sovereign? Who\nsettled the State, which he had rescued from arbitrary power, by the\nappointment of an annual magistracy, a regular system of laws, and a free\nand open course of justice? And who abrogated the authority of his\ncolleague, that he might rid the city of the smallest vestige of the\n_regal_ name?--Events, which could never have been produced without\nexerting the powers of Persuasion!--We are likewise informed that a few\nyears after the expulsion of the Kings, when the Plebeians retired to the\nbanks of the Anio, about three miles from the city, and had possessed\nthemselves of what is called The _sacred_ Mount, M. Valerius the dictator\nappeased their fury by a public harangue; for which he was afterwards\nrewarded with the highest posts of honour, and was the first Roman who was\ndistinguished by the surname of _Maximus_. Nor can L. Valerius Potitus be\nsupposed to have been destitute of the powers of utterance, who, after the\nodium which had been excited against the Patricians by the tyrannical\ngovernment of the _Decemviri_, reconciled the people to the Senate, by his\nprudent laws and conciliatory speeches. We may likewise suppose, that\nAppius Claudius was a man of some eloquence; since he dissuaded the Senate\nfrom consenting to a peace with King Pyrrhus, though they were much\ninclined to it. The same might be said of Caius Fabricius, who was\ndispatched to Pyrrhus to treat for the ransom of his captive fellow-\ncitizens; and of Titus Coruncanius, who appears by the memoirs of the\npontifical college, to have been a person of no contemptible genius: and\nlikewise of M. Curius (then a tribune of the people) who, when the\nInterrex Appius _the Blind_, an artful Speaker, held the _Comitia_\ncontrary to law, by refusing to admit any consuls of plebeian rank,\nprevailed upon the Senate to protest against the conduct: of his\nantagonist; which, if we consider that the Moenian law was not then in\nbeing, was a very bold attempt. We may also conjecture, that M. Popilius\nwas a man of abilities, who, in the time of his consulship, when he was\nsolemnizing a public sacrifice in the proper habit of his office, (for he\nwas also a Flamen Carmentalis) hearing of the mutiny and insurrection of\nthe people against the Senate, rushed immediately into the midst of the\nassembly, covered as he was with his sacerdotal robes, and quelled the\nsedition by his authority and the force of his elocution. I do not pretend\nto have read that the persons I have mentioned were then reckoned Orators,\nor that any fort of reward or encouragement was given to Eloquence: I only\nconjecture what appears very probable. It is also recorded, that C.\nFlaminius, who, when tribune of the people proposed the law for dividing\nthe conquered territories of the Gauls and Piceni among the citizens, and\nwho, after his promotion to the consulship, was slain near the lake\nThrasimenus, became very popular by the mere force of his address, Quintus\nMaximus Verrucosus was likewise reckoned a good Speaker by his\ncotemporaries; as was also Quintus Metellus, who, in the second Punic war,\nwas joint consul with L. Veturius Philo. But the first person we have any\ncertain account of, who was publicly distinguished as an _Orator_, and who\nreally appears to have been such, was M. Cornelius Cethegus; whose\neloquence is attested by Q. Ennius, a voucher of the highest credibility;\nsince he actually heard him speak, and gave him this character after his\ndeath; so that there is no reason to suspect that he was prompted by the\nwarmth of his friendship to exceed the bounds of truth. In his ninth book\nof Annals, he has mentioned him in the following terms:\n\n  \"_Additur Orator Corneliu' suaviloquenti\n  Ore Cethegus Marcu', Tuditano collega,\n  Marci Filius._\"\n\n\"_Add the_ Orator _M. Cornelius Cethegus, so much admired for his\nmellifluent tongue; who was the colleague of Tuditanus, and the son of\nMarcus_.\"\n\n\"He expressly calls him an _Orator_, you see, and attributes to him a\nremarkable sweetness of elocution; which, even now a-days, is an\nexcellence of which few are possessed: for some of our modern Orators are\nso insufferably harsh, that they may rather be said to bark than to speak.\nBut what the Poet so much admires in his friend, may certainly be\nconsidered as one of the principal ornaments of Eloquence. He adds;\n\n\" ----_is dictus, ollis popularibus olim,\n  Qui tum vivebant homines, atque aevum agitabant,\n  Flos delibatus populi_.\"\n\n\"_He was called by his cotemporaries, the choicest Flower of the State_.\"\n\n\"A very elegant compliment! for as the glory of a man is the strength of\nhis mental capacity, so the brightest ornament of that is Eloquence; in\nwhich, whoever had the happiness to excel, was beautifully styled, by the\nAncients, the _Flower_ of the State; and, as the Poet immediately\nsubjoins,\n\n  \"'--_Suadaeque medulla:'\n\n\"the very marrow and quintessence of Persuasion_.\"\n\n\"That which the Greeks call [Greek: Peitho], _(i.e. Persuasion)_ and which\nit is the chief business of an Orator to effect, is here called _Suada_ by\nEnnius; and of this he commends Cethegus as the _quintessence_; so that he\nmakes the Roman Orator to be himself the very substance of that amiable\nGoddess, who is said by Eupolis to have dwelt on the lips of Pericles.\nThis Cethegus was joint-consul with P. Tuditanus in the second Punic war;\nat which time also M. Cato was Quaestor, about one hundred and forty years\nbefore I myself was promoted to the consulship; which circumstance would\nhave been absolutely lost, if it had not been recorded by Ennius; and the\nmemory of that illustrious citizen, as has probably been the case of many\nothers, would have been obliterated by the rust of antiquity. The manner\nof speaking which was then in vogue, may easily be collected from the\nwritings of _Naevius_: for Naevius died, as we learn from the memoirs of\nthe times, when the persons above-mentioned were consuls; though Varro, a\nmost accurate investigator of historical truth, thinks there is a mistake\nin this, and fixes the death of Naevius something later. For Plautus died\nin the consulship of P. Claudius and L. Porcius, twenty years after the\nconsulship of the persons we have been speaking of, and when Cato was\nCensor. Cato, therefore, must have been younger than Cethegus, for he was\nconsul nine years after him: but we always consider him as a person of the\nremotest antiquity, though he died in the consulship of Lucius Marcius and\nM. Manilius, and but eighty-three years before my own promotion to the\nsame office. He is certainly, however, the most ancient Orator we have,\nwhose writings may claim our attention; unless any one is pleased with the\nabove-mentioned speech of Appius, on the peace with Pyrrhus, or with a set\nof panegyrics on the dead, which, I own, are still extant. For it was\ncustomary in most families of note to preserve their images, their\ntrophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when any\nof the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, or\nprove their own nobility. But the truth of History has been much corrupted\nby these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in them\nwhich never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession of\nconsulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rank\nwere confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if I myself\nshould pretend that I am descended from M. Tullius, who was a Patrician,\nand shared the consulship with Servius Sulpicius, about ten years after\nthe expulsion of the kings.\n\n\"But the real speeches of Cato are almost as numerous as those of Lysias\nthe Athenian; a great number of whose are still extant. For Lysias was\ncertainly an Athenian; because he not only died but received his birth at\nAthens, and served all the offices of the city; though Timaesus, as if he\nacted by the Licinian or the Mucian law, remands him back to Syracuse.\nThere is, however, a manifest resemblance between _his_ character and that\nof _Cato_: for they are both of them distinguished by their acuteness,\ntheir elegance, their agreeable humour, and their brevity. But the Greek\nhas the happiness to be most admired: for there are some who are so\nextravagantly fond of him, as to prefer a graceful air to a vigorous\nconstitution, and who are perfectly satisfied with a slender and an easy\nshape, if it is only attended with a moderate share of health. It must,\nhowever, be acknowledged, that even Lysias often displays a strength of\narm, than which nothing can be more strenuous and forcible; though he is\ncertainly, in all respects, of a more thin and feeble habit than Cato,\nnotwithstanding he has so many admirers, who are charmed with his very\nslenderness. But as to Cato, where will you find a modern Orator who\ncondescends to read him?--nay, I might have said, who has the least\nknowledge of him?--And yet, good Gods! what a wonderful man! I say nothing\nof his merit as a Citizen, a Senator, and a General; we must confine our\nattention to the Orator. Who, then, has displayed more dignity as a\npanegyrist?--more severity as an accuser?--more ingenuity in the turn of\nhis sentiments?--or more neatness and address in his narratives and\nexplanations? Though he composed above a hundred and fifty orations,\n(which I have seen and read) they are crowded with all the beauties of\nlanguage and sentiment. Let us select from these what deserves our notice\nand applause: they will supply us with all the graces of Oratory. Not to\nomit his _Antiquities_, who will deny that these also are adorned with\nevery flower, and with all the lustre of Eloquence? and yet he has\nscarcely any admirers; which some ages ago was the case of Philistus the\nSyracusan, and even of Thucydides himself. For as the lofty and elevated\nstyle of Theopompus soon diminished the reputation of their pithy and\nlaconic harangues, which were sometimes scarcely intelligible through\ntheir excessive brevity and quaintness; and as Demosthenes eclipsed the\nglory of Lysias, so the pompous and stately elocution of the moderns has\nobscured the lustre of Cato. But many of us are shamefully ignorant and\ninattentive; for we admire the Greeks for their antiquity, and what is\ncalled their Attic neatness, and yet have never noticed the same quality\nin Cato. It was the distinguishing character, say they, of Lysias and\nHyperides. I own it, and I admire them for it: but why not allow a share\nof it to Cato? They are fond, they tell us, of the _Attic_ style of\nEloquence: and their choice is certainly judicious, provided they borrow\nthe blood and the healthy juices, as well as the bones and membranes. What\nthey recommend, however, is, to do it justice, an agreeable quality. But\nwhy must Lysias and Hyperides be so fondly courted, while Cato is entirely\noverlooked? His language indeed has an antiquated air, and some of his\nexpressions are rather too harsh and crabbed. But let us remember that\nthis was the language of the time: only change and modernize it, which it\nwas not in his power to do;--add the improvements of number and cadence,\ngive an easier turn to his sentences, and regulate the structure and\nconnection of his words, (which was as little practised even by the older\nGreeks as by him) and you will discover no one who can claim the\npreference to Cato. The Greeks themselves acknowledge that the chief\nbeauty of composition results from the frequent use of those\n_translatitious_ forms of expression which they call _Tropes_, and of\nthose various attitudes of language and sentiment which they call\n_Figures_: but it is almost incredible in what numbers, and with what\namazing variety, they are all employed by Cato. I know, indeed, that he is\nnot sufficiently polished, and that recourse must be had to a more perfect\nmodel for imitation: for he is an author of such antiquity, that he is the\noldest now extant, whose writings can be read with patience; and the\nancients in general acquired a much greater reputation in every other art,\nthan in that of Speaking. But who that has seen the statues of the\nmoderns, will not perceive in a moment, that the figures of Canachus are\ntoo stiff and formal, to resemble life? Those of Calamis, though evidently\nharsh, are somewhat softer. Even the statues of Myron are not sufficiently\nalive; and yet you would not hesitate to pronounce them beautiful. But\nthose of Polycletes are much finer, and, in my mind, completely finished.\nThe case is the same in Painting; for in the works of Zeuxis, Polygnotus,\nTimanthes, and several other masters who confined themselves to the use of\nfour colours, we commend the air and the symmetry of their figures; but in\nAetion, Nicomachus, Protogenes, and Apelles, every thing is finished to\nperfection. This, I believe, will hold equally true in all the other arts;\nfor there is not one of them which was invented and completed at the same\ntime. I cannot doubt, for instance, that there were many Poets before\nHomer: we may infer it from those very songs which he himself informs us\nwere sung at the feasts of the Phaeacians, and of the profligate suitors\nof Penelope. Nay, to go no farther, what is become of the ancient poems of\nour own countrymen?\"\n\n  \"Such as the Fauns and rustic Bards compos'd,\n  When none the rocks of poetry had cross'd,\n  Nor wish'd to form his style by rules of art,\n  Before this vent'rous man: &c.\n\n\"Old Ennius here speaks of himself; nor does he carry his boast beyond the\nbounds of truth: the case being really as he describes it. For we had only\nan Odyssey in Latin, which resembled one of the rough and unfinished\nstatues of Daedalus; and some dramatic pieces of Livius, which will\nscarcely bear a second reading. This Livius exhibited his first\nperformance at Rome in the Consulship of M. Tuditanus, and C. Clodius the\nson of Caecus, the year before Ennius was born, and, according to the\naccount of my friend Atticus, (whom I choose to follow) the five hundred\nand fourteenth from the building of the city. But historians are not\nagreed about the date of the year. Attius informs us that Livius was taken\nprisoner at Tarentum by Quintus Maximus in his fifth Consulship, about\nthirty years after he is said by Atticus, and our ancient annals, to have\nintroduced the drama. He adds that he exhibited his first dramatic piece\nabout eleven years after, in the Consulship of C. Cornelius and Q.\nMinucius, at the public games which Salinator had vowed to the Goddess of\nYouth for his victory over the Senones. But in this, Attius was so far\nmistaken, that Ennius, when the persons above-mentioned were Consuls, was\nforty years old: so that if Livius was of the same age, as in this case he\nwould have been, the first dramatic author we had must have been younger\nthan Plautus and Naevius, who had exhibited a great number of plays before\nthe time he specifies. If these remarks, my Brutus, appear unsuitable to\nthe subject before us, you must throw the whole blame upon Atticus, who\nhas inspired me with a strange curiosity to enquire into the age of\nillustrious men, and the respective times of their appearance.\"--\"On the\ncontrary,\" said Brutus, \"I am highly pleased that you have carried your\nattention so far; and I think your remarks well adapted to the curious\ntask you have undertaken, the giving us a history of the different classes\nof Orators in their proper order.\"--\"You understand me right,\" said I;\n\"and I heartily wish those venerable Odes were still extant, which Cato\ninforms us in his Antiquities, used to be sung by every guest in his turn\nat the homely feasts of our ancestors, many ages before, to commemorate\nthe feats of their heroes. But the _Punic war_ of that antiquated Poet,\nwhom Ennius so proudly ranks among the _Fauns and rustic Bards_, affords\nme as exquisite a pleasure as the finest statue that was ever formed by\nMyron. Ennius, I allow, was a more finished writer: but if he had really\nundervalued the other, as he pretends to do, he would scarcely have\nomitted such a bloody war as the first _Punic_, when he attempted\nprofessedly to describe all the wars of the Republic. Nay he himself\nassigns the reason.\n\n  \"Others\" (said he) \"that cruel war have sung:\"\n\nVery true, and they have sung it with great order and precision, though\nnot, indeed, in such elegant strains as yourself. This you ought to have\nacknowledged, as you must certainly be conscious that you have borrowed\nmany ornaments from Naevius; or if you refuse to own it, I shall tell you\nplainly that you have _pilfered_ them.\n\n\"Cotemporary with the Cato above-mentioned (though somewhat older) were C.\nFlaminius, C. Varro, Q. Maximus, Q. Metellus, P. Lentulus, and P. Crassus\nwho was joint Consul with the elder Africanus. This Scipio, we are told,\nwas not destitute of the powers of Elocution: but his son, who adopted the\nyounger Scipio (the son of Paulus Aemilius) would have stood foremost in\nthe list of Orators, if he had possessed a firmer constitution. This is\nevident from a few Speeches, and a Greek History of his, which are very\nagreeably written. In the same class we may place Sextus Aelius, who was\nthe best lawyer of his time, and a ready speaker. A little after these,\nwas C. Sulpicius Gallus, who was better acquainted with the Grecian\nliterature than all the rest of the nobility, and was reckoned a graceful\nOrator, being equally distinguished, in every other respect, by the\nsuperior elegance of his taste; for a more copious and splendid way of\nspeaking began now to prevail. When this Sulpicius, in quality of Praetor,\nwas celebrating the public shews in honour of Apollo, died the Poet\nEnnius, in the Consulship of Q. Marcius and Cn. Servilius, after\nexhibiting his Tragedy of _Thyestes_. At the same time lived Tiberius\nGracchus, the son of Publius, who was twice Consul and Censor: a Greek\nOration of his to the Rhodians is still extant, and he bore the character\nof a worthy citizen, and an eloquent Speaker. We are likewise told that P.\nScipio Nasica, surnamed The Darling of the People, and who also had the\nhonor to be twice chosen Consul and Censor, was esteemed an able Orator:\nTo him we may add L. Lentulus, who was joint Consul with C. Figulus;--Q.\nNobilior, the son of Marcus, who was inclined to the study of literature\nby his father's example, and presented Ennius (who had served under his\nfather in Aetolia) with the freedom of the City, when he founded a colony\nin quality of Triumvir: and his colleague, T. Annius Luscus, who is said\nto have been tolerably eloquent. We are likewise informed that L. Paulus,\nthe father of Africanus, defended the character of an eminent citizen in a\npublic speech; and that Cato, who died in the 83d year of his age, was\nthen living, and actually pleaded, that very year, against the defendant\nServius Galba, in the open Forum, with great energy and spirit:--he has\nleft a copy of this Oration behind him. But when Cato was in the decline\nof life, a crowd of Orators, all younger than himself, made their\nappearance at the same time: For A. Albinus, who wrote a History in Greek,\nand shared the Consulship with L. Lucullus, was greatly admired for his\nlearning and Elocution: and almost equal to him were Servius Fulvius, and\nServius Fabius Pictor, the latter of whom was well acquainted with the\nlaws of his country, the Belles Lettres, and the History of Antiquity.\nQuintus Fabius Labeo was likewise adorned with the same accomplishments.\nBut Q. Metellus whose four sons attained the consular dignity, was admired\nfor his Eloquence beyond the rest;--he undertook the defence of L. Cotta,\nwhen he was accused by Africanus,--and composed many other Speeches,\nparticularly that against Tiberius Gracchus, which we have a full account\nof in the Annals of C. Fannius. L. Cotta himself was likewise reckoned a\n_veteran_; but C. Laelius, and P. Africanus were allowed by all to be more\nfinished Speakers: their Orations are still extant, and may serve as\nspecimens of their respective abilities. But Servius Galba, who was\nsomething older than any of them, was indisputably the best speaker of the\nage. He was the first among the Romans who displayed the proper and\ndistinguishing talents of an Orator, such as, digressing from his subject\nto embellish and diversify it,--soothing or alarming the passions,\nexhibiting every circumstance in the strongest light,--imploring the\ncompassion of his audience, and artfully enlarging on those topics, or\ngeneral principles of Prudence or Morality, on which the stress of his\nargument depended: and yet, I know not how, though he is allowed to have\nbeen the greatest Orator of his time, the Orations he has left are more\nlifeless, and have a more antiquated air, than those of Laelius, or\nScipio, or even of Cato himself: in short, the strength and substance of\nthem has so far evaporated, that we have scarcely any thing of them\nremaining but the bare skeletons. In the same manner, though both Laelius\nand Scipio are greatly extolled for their abilities; the preference was\ngiven to Laelius as a speaker; and yet his Oration, in defence of the\nprivileges of the Sacerdotal College, has no greater merit than any one\nyou may please to fix upon of the numerous speeches of Scipio. Nothing,\nindeed, can be sweeter and milder than that of Laelius, nor could any\nthing have been urged with greater dignity to support the honour of\nreligion: but, of the two, Laelius appears to me to be rougher, and more\nold-fashioned than Scipio; and, as different Speakers have different\ntastes, he had in my mind too strong a relish for antiquity, and was too\nfond of using obsolete expressions. But such is the jealousy of mankind,\nthat they will not allow the same person to be possessed of too many\nperfections. For as in military prowess they thought it impossible that\nany man could vie with Scipio, though Laelius had not a little\ndistinguished himself in the war with Viriathus; so for learning,\nEloquence, and wisdom, though each was allowed to be above the reach of\nany other competitor, they adjudged the preference to Laelius. Nor was\nthis only the opinion of the world, but it seems to have been allowed by\nmutual consent between themselves: for it was then a general custom, as\ncandid in this respect as it was fair and just in every other, to give his\ndue to each. I accordingly remember that P. Rutilius Rufus once told me at\nSmyrna, that when he was a young man, the two Consuls P. Scipio and D.\nBrutus, by order of the Senate, tried a capital cause of great\nconsequence. For several persons of note having been murdered in the Silan\nForest, and the domestics, and some of the sons, of a company of gentlemen\nwho farmed the taxes of the pitch-manufactory, being charged with the\nfact, the Consuls were ordered to try the cause in person. Laelius, he\nsaid, spoke very sensibly and elegantly, as indeed he always did, on the\nside of the farmers of the customs. But the Consuls, after hearing both\nsides, judging it necessary to refer the matter to a second trial, the\nsame Laelius, a few days after, pleaded their cause again with more\naccuracy, and much better than at first. The affair, however, was once\nmore put off for a further hearing. Upon this, when his clients attended\nLaelius to his own house, and, after thanking him for what he had already\ndone, earnestly begged him not to be disheartened by the fatigue he had\nsuffered;--he assured them he had exerted his utmost to defend their\nreputation; but frankly added, that he thought their cause would be more\neffectually supported by Servius Galba, whose manner of speaking was more\nembellished and more spirited than his own. They, accordingly, by the\nadvice of Laelius, requested Galba to undertake it. To this he consented;\nbut with the greatest modesty and reluctance, out of respect to the\nillustrious advocate he was going to succeed:--and as he had only the next\nday to prepare himself, he spent the whole of it in considering and\ndigesting his cause. When the day of trial was come, Rutilius himself, at\nthe request of the defendants, went early in the morning to Galba, to give\nhim notice of it, and conduct him to the court in proper time. But till\nword was brought that the Consuls were going to the bench, he confined\nhimself in his study, where he suffered no one to be admitted; and\ncontinued very busy in dictating to his Amanuenses, several of whom (as\nindeed he often used to do) he kept fully employed at once. While he was\nthus engaged, being informed that it was high time for him to appear in\ncourt, he left his house with so much life in his eyes, and such an ardent\nglow upon his countenance, that you would have thought he had not only\n_prepared_ his cause, but actually _carried_ it. Rutilius added, as\nanother circumstance worth noticing, that his scribes, who attended him to\nthe bar, appeared excessively fatigued: from whence he thought it probable\nthat he was equally warm and vigorous in the composition, as in the\ndelivery of his speeches. But to conclude the story, Galba pleaded his\ncause before Laelius himself, and a very numerous and attentive audience,\nwith such uncommon force and dignity, that every part of his Oration\nreceived the applause of his hearers: and so powerfully did he move the\nfeelings, and affect the pity of the judges, that his clients were\nimmediately acquitted of the charge, to the satisfaction of the whole\ncourt.\n\n\"As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are to\nbe neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm and\nforcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames his\naudience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amuse\nthem; we may conjecture from the above narrative, which I was favoured\nwith by Rutilius, that Laelius was most admired for his elegance, and\nGalba for his pathetic force. But this force of his was most remarkably\nexerted, when, having in his Praetorship put to death some Lusitanians,\ncontrary (it was believed) to his previous and express engagement;--T.\nLibo the Tribune exasperated the people against him, and preferred a bill\nwhich was to operate against his conduct as a subsequent law. M. Cato (as\nI have before mentioned) though extremely old, spoke in support of the\nbill with great vehemence; which Speech he inserted in his Book of\n_Antiquities_, a few days, or at most only a month or two, before his\ndeath. On this occasion, Galba refusing to plead to the charge, and\nsubmitting his fate to the generosity of the people, recommended his\nchildren to their protection, with tears in his eyes; and particularly his\nyoung ward the son of C. Gallus Sulpicius his deceased friend, whose\norphan state and piercing cries, which were the more regarded for the sake\nof his illustrious father, excited their pity in a wonderful manner;--and\nthus (as Cato informs us in his History) he escaped the flames which would\notherwise have consumed him, by employing the children to move the\ncompassion of the people. I likewise find (what may be easily judged from\nhis Orations still extant) that his prosecutor Libo was a man of some\nEloquence.\"\n\nAs I concluded these remarks with a short pause;--\"What can be the\nreason,\" said Brutus, \"if there was so much merit in the Oratory of Galba,\nthat there is no trace of it to be seen in his Orations;--a circumstance\nwhich I have no opportunity to be surprized at in others, who have left\nnothing behind them in writing.\"--\"The reasons,\" said I, \"why some have\nnot wrote any thing, and others not so well as they spoke, are very\ndifferent. Some of our Orators have writ nothing through mere indolence,\nand because they were loath to add a private fatigue to a public one: for\nmost of the Orations we are now possessed of were written not before they\nwere spoken, but some time afterwards. Others did not choose the trouble\nof improving themselves; to which nothing more contributes than frequent\nwriting; and as to perpetuating the fame of their Eloquence, they thought\nit unnecessary; supposing that their eminence in that respect was\nsufficiently established already, and that it would be rather diminished\nthan increased by submitting any written specimen of it to the arbitrary\ntest of criticism. Some also were sensible that they spoke much better\nthan they were able to write; which is generally the case of those who\nhave a great genius, but little learning, such as Servius Galba. When he\nspoke, he was perhaps so much animated by the force of his abilities, and\nthe natural warmth and impetuosity of his temper, that his language was\nrapid, bold, and striking; but afterwards, when he took up the pen in his\nleisure hours, and his passion had sunk into a calm, his Elocution became\ndull and languid. This indeed can never happen to those whose only aim is\nto be neat and polished; because an Orator may always be master of that\ndiscretion which will enable him both to speak and write in the same\nagreeable manner: but no man can revive at pleasure the ardour of his\npassions; and when that has once subsided, the fire and pathos of his\nlanguage will be extinguished. This is the reason why the calm and easy\nspirit of Laelius seems still to breathe in his writings, whereas the\nforce of Galba is entirely withered and lost.\n\n\"We may also reckon in the number of middling Orators, the two brothers L.\nand Sp. Mummius, both whose Orations are still in being:--the style of\nLucius is plain and antiquated; but that of Spurius, though equally\nunembellished, is more close, and compact; for he was well versed in the\ndoctrine of the Stoics. The Orations of Sp. Alpinus, their cotemporary,\nare very numerous: and we have several by L. and C. Aurelius Oresta, who\nwere esteemed indifferent Speakers. P. Popilius also was a worthy citizen,\nand had a tolerable share of utterance: but his son Caius was really\neloquent. To _these_ we may add C. Tuditanus, who was not only very\npolished, and genteel, in his manners and appearance, but had an elegant\nturn of expression; and of the same class was M. Octavius, a man of\ninflexible constancy in every just and laudable measure; and who, after\nbeing affronted and disgraced in the most public manner, defeated his\nrival Tiberius Gracchus by the mere dint of his perseverance. But M.\nAemilius Lepidus, who was surnamed Porcina, and flourished at the same\ntime as Galba, though he was indeed something younger, was esteemed an\nOrator of the first eminence; and really appears, from his Orations which\nare still extant, to have been a masterly writer. For he was the first\nSpeaker, among the Romans, who gave us a specimen of the easy gracefulness\nof the Greeks; and who was distinguished by the measured flow of his\nlanguage, and a style regularly polished and improved by art. His manner\nwas carefully studied by C. Carbo and Tib. Gracchus, two accomplished\nyouths who were nearly of an age: but we must defer their character as\npublic Speakers, till we have finished our account of their elders. For Q.\nPompeius, according to the style of the time, was no contemptible Orator;\nand actually raised himself to the highest honours of the State by his own\npersonal merit, and without being recommended, as usual, by the quality of\nhis ancestors. Lucius Cassius too derived his influence, which was very\nconsiderable, not indeed from his _Eloquence_, but from his manly way of\nspeaking: for it is remarkable that he made himself popular, not, as\nothers did, by his complaisance and liberality, but by the gloomy rigour\nand severity of his manners. His law for collecting the votes of the\npeople by way of ballot, was strongly opposed by the Tribune M. Antius\nBriso, who was supported by M. Lepidus one of the Consuls: and it was\nafterwards objected to Africanus, that Briso dropped the opposition by his\nadvice. At this time the two Scipios were very serviceable to a number of\nclients by their superior judgment, and Eloquence; but still more so by\ntheir extensive interest and popularity. But the written speeches of\nPompeius (though it must be owned they have rather an antiquated air)\ndiscover an amazing sagacity, and are very far from being dry and\nspiritless. To these we must add P. Crassus, an orator of uncommon merit,\nwho was qualified for the profession by the united efforts of art and\nnature, and enjoyed some other advantages which were almost peculiar to\nhis family. For he had contracted an affinity with that accomplished\nSpeaker Servius Galba above-mentioned, by giving his daughter in marriage\nto Galba's son; and being likewise himself the son of Mucius, and the\nbrother of P. Scaevola, he had a fine opportunity at home (which he made\nthe best use of) to gain a thorough knowledge of the Civil Law. He was a\nman of unusual application, and was much beloved by his fellow-citizens;\nbeing constantly employed either in giving his advice, or pleading causes\nin the Forum. Cotemporary with the Speakers I have mentioned were the two\nC. Fannii, the sons of C. and M. one of whom, (the son of C.) who was\njoint Consul with Domitius, has left us an excellent speech against\nGracchus, who proposed the admission of the Latin and Italian allies to\nthe freedom of Rome.\"--\"Do you really think, then,\" said Atticus, \"that\nFannius was the author of that Oration? For when we were young, there were\ndifferent opinions about it. Some asserted it was wrote by C. Persius, a\nman of letters, and the same who is so much extolled for his learning by\nLucilius: and others believed it was the joint production of a number of\nnoblemen, each of whom contributed his best to complete it.\"--\"This I\nremember,\" said I; \"but I could never persuade myself to coincide with\neither of them. Their suspicion, I believe, was entirely founded on the\ncharacter of Fannius, who was only reckoned among the _middling_ Orators;\nwhereas the speech in question is esteemed the best which the time\nafforded. But, on the other hand, it is too much of a piece to have been\nthe mingled composition of many: for the flow of the periods, and the turn\nof the language, are perfectly similar, throughout the whole of it.--and\nas to _Persius_, if _he_ had composed it for Fannius to pronounce,\nGracchus would certainly have taken some notice of it in his reply;\nbecause Fannius rallies Gracchus pretty severely, in one part of it, for\nemploying Menelaus of Marathon, and several others, to manufacture his\nspeeches. We may add that Fannius himself was no contemptible Orator: for\nhe pleaded a number of causes, and his Tribuneship, which was chiefly\nconducted under the management and direction of P. Africanus, was very far\nfrom being an idle one. But the other C. Fannius, (the son of M.) and son-\nin-law of C. Laelius, was of a rougher cast, both in his temper, and\nmanner of speaking. By the advice of his father-in-law, (of whom, by the\nbye, he was not remarkably fond, because he had not voted for his\nadmission into the college of augurs, but gave the preference to his\nyounger son-in-law Q. Scaevola; though Laelius genteely excused himself,\nby saying that the preference was not given to the youngest son, but to\nhis wife the eldest daughter,) by his advice, I say, he attended the\nlectures of Panaetius. His abilities as a Speaker may be easily\nconjectured from his History, which is neither destitute of elegance, nor\na perfect model of composition. As to his brother Mucius the augur,\nwhenever he was called upon to defend himself, he always pleaded his own\ncause; as, for instance, in the action which was brought against him for\nbribery by T. Albucius. But he was never ranked among the Orators; his\nchief merit being a critical knowledge of the Civil Law, and an uncommon\naccuracy of judgment. L. Caelius Antipater likewise (as you may see by his\nworks) was an elegant and a handsome writer for the time he lived in; he\nwas also an excellent Lawyer, and taught the principles of jurisprudence\nto many others, particularly to L. Crassus. As to Caius Carbo and T.\nGracchus, I wish they had been as well inclined to maintain peace and good\norder in the State, as they were qualified to support it by their\nEloquence: their glory would then have been out-rivaled by no one. But the\nlatter, for his turbulent Tribuneship, which he entered upon with a heart\nfull of resentment against the great and good, on account of the odium he\nhad brought upon himself by the treaty of Numantia, was slain by the hands\nof the Republic: and the other, being impeached of a seditious affectation\nof popularity, rescued himself from the severity of the judges by a\nvoluntary death. That both of them were excellent Speakers, is very plain\nfrom the general testimony of their cotemporaries: for as to their\nSpeeches now extant, though I allow them to be very artful and judicious,\nthey are certainly defective in Elocution. Gracchus had the advantage of\nbeing carefully instructed by his mother Cornelia from his very childhood,\nand his mind was enriched with all the stores of Grecian literature: for\nhe was constantly attended by the ablest masters from Greece, and\nparticularly, in his youth, by Diophanes of Mitylene, who was the most\neloquent Grecian of his age: but though he was a man of uncommon genius,\nhe had but a short time to improve and display it. As to Carbo, his whole\nlife was spent in trials, and forensic debates. He is said by very\nsensible men who heard him, and, among others, by our friend L. Gellius\nwho lived in his family in the time of his Consulship, to have been a\nsonorous, a fluent, and a spirited Speaker, and likewise, upon occasion,\nvery pathetic, very engaging, and excessively humorous: Gellius used to\nadd, that he applied himself very closely to his studies, and bestowed\nmuch of his time in writing and private declamation. He was, therefore,\nesteemed the best pleader of his time; for no sooner had he began to\ndistinguish himself in the Forum, but the depravity of the age gave birth\nto a number of law-suits; and it was first found necessary, in the time of\nhis youth, to settle the form of public trials, which had never been done\nbefore. We accordingly find that L. Piso, then a Tribune of the people,\nwas the first who proposed a law against bribery; which he did when\nCensorinus and Manilius were Consuls. This Piso too was a professed\npleader, and the proposer and opposer of a great number of laws: he left\nsome Orations behind him, which are now lost, and a Book of Annals very\nindifferently written. But in the public trials, in which Carbo was\nconcerned, the assistance of an able advocate had become more necessary\nthan ever, in consequence of the law for voting by ballots, which was\nproposed and carried by L. Cassius, in the Consulship of Lepidus and\nMancinus.\n\n\"I have likewise been often assured by the poet Attius, (an intimate\nfriend of his) that your ancestor D. Brutus, the son of M. was no\ninelegant Speaker; and that for the time he lived in, he was well versed\nboth in the Greek and Roman literature. He ascribed the same\naccomplishments to Q. Maximus, the grandson of L. Paulus: and added that,\na little prior to Maximus, the Scipio, by whose instigation (though only\nin a private capacity) T. Gracchus was assassinated, was not only a man of\ngreat ardour in all other respects, but very warm and spirited in his\nmanner of speaking. P. Lentulus too, the Father of the Senate, had a\nsufficient share of eloquence for an honest and useful magistrate. About\nthe same time L. Furius Philus was thought to speak our language as\nelegantly, and more correctly than any other man; P. Scaevola to be very\nartful and judicious, and rather more fluent than Philus; M. Manilius to\npossess almost an equal share of judgment with the latter; and Appius\nClaudius to be equally fluent, but more warm and pathetic. M. Fulvius\nFlaccus, and C. Cato the nephew of Africanus, were likewise tolerable\nOrators: some of the writings of Flaccus are still in being, in which\nnothing, however, is to be seen but the mere scholar. P. Decius was a\nprofessed rival of Flaccus; he too was not destitute of Eloquence; but his\nstyle, as well as his temper, was too violent. M. Drusus the son of C.\nwho, in his Tribuneship, baffled [Footnote: _Laffiea_. In the original it\nruns, \"_Caium Gracchum collegam, iterum Tribinum fecit_.\" but this was\nundoubtedly a mistake of the transcriber, as being contrary not only to\nthe truth of History, but to Cicero's own account of the matter in lib.\nIV. _Di Finibus_. Pighius therefore has very properly recommended the word\n_fregit_ instead of _fecit_.] his colleague Gracchus (then raised to the\nsame office a second time) was a nervous Speaker, and a man of great\npopularity: and next to him was his brother C. Drusus. Your kinsman also,\nmy Brutus, (M. Pennus) successfully opposed the Tribune Gracchus, who was\nsomething younger than himself. For Gracchus was Quaestor, and Pennus (the\nson of that M. who was joint Consul with Q. Aelius) was Tribune, in the\nConsulship of M. Lepidus and L. Orestes: but after enjoying the\nAedileship, and a prospect: of succeeding to the highest honours, he was\nsnatched off by an untimely death. As to T. Flaminius, whom I myself have\nseen, I can learn nothing but that he spoke our language with great\naccuracy. To these we may join C. Curio, M. Scaurus, P. Rutilius, and C.\nGracchus. It will not be amiss to give a short account of Scaurus and\nRutilius; neither of whom, indeed, had the reputation of being a first-\nrate Orator, though each of them pleaded a number of causes. But some\ndeserving men, who were not remarkable for their genius, may be justly\ncommended for their industry; not that the persons I am speaking of were\nreally destitute of genius, but only of that particular kind of it which\ndistinguishes the Orator. For it is of little consequence to discover what\nis proper to be said, unless you are able to express it in a free and\nagreeable manner: and even that will be insufficient, if not recommended\nby the voice, the look, and the gesture. It is needless to add that much\ndepends upon _Art_: for though, even without this, it is possible, by the\nmere force of nature, to say many striking things; yet, as they will after\nall be nothing more than so many lucky hits, we shall not be able to\nrepeat them at our pleasure. The style of Scaurus, who was a very sensible\nand honest man, was remarkably serious, and commanded the respect of the\nhearer: so that when he was speaking for his client, you would rather have\nthought he was giving evidence in his favour, than pleading his cause.\nThis manner of speaking, however, though but indifferently adapted to the\nbar, was very much so to a calm, debate in the Senate, of which Scaurus\nwas then esteemed the Father: for it not only bespoke his prudence, but\nwhat was still a more important recommendation, his credibility. This\nadvantage, which it is not easy to acquire by art, he derived entirely\nfrom nature: though you know that even _here_ we have some precepts to\nassist us. We have several of his Orations still extant, and three books\ninscribed to L. Fufidius containing the History of his own Life, which,\nthough a very useful work, is scarcely read by any body. But the\n_Institution of Cyrus_, by Xenophon, is read by every one; which, though\nan excellent performance of the kind, is much less adapted to our manners\nand form of government, and not superior in merit to the honest simplicity\nof Scaurus. Fufidius himself was likewise a tolerable pleader. But\nRutilius was distinguished by his solemn and austere way of speaking; and\nboth of them were naturally warm, and spirited. Accordingly, after they\nhad rivalled each other for the Consulship, he who had lost his election,\nimmediately sued his competitor for bribery; and Scaurus, the defendant,\nbeing honourably acquitted of the charge, returned the compliment to\nRutilius, by commencing a similar prosecution against _him_. Rutilius was\na man of great industry and application; for which he was the more\nrespected, because, besides his pleadings, he undertook the office (which\nwas a very troublesome one) of giving advice to all who applied to him, in\nmatters of law. His Orations are very dry, but his juridical remarks are\nexcellent: for he was a learned man, and well versed in the Greek\nliterature, and was likewise an attentive and constant hearer of\nPanaetius, and a thorough proficient in the doctrine of the Stoics; whose\nmethod of discoursing, though very close and artful, is too precise, and\nnot at all adapted to engage the attention of common people. That self-\nconfidence, therefore, which is so peculiar to the sect, was displayed by\n_him_ with amazing firmness and resolution; for though he was perfectly\ninnocent of the charge, a prosecution was commenced against him for\nbribery (a trial which raised a violent commotion in the city)--and yet\nthough L. Crassus and M. Antonius, both of Consular dignity, were, at that\ntime, in very high repute for their Eloquence, he refused the assistance\nof either; being determined to plead his cause himself, which he\naccordingly did. C. Cotta, indeed, who was his nephew, made a short speech\nin his vindication, which he spoke in the true style of an Orator, though\nhe was then but a youth. Q. Mucius too said much in his defence, with his\nusual accuracy and elegance; but not with that force, and extension, which\nthe mode of trial, and the importance of the cause demanded. Rutilius,\ntherefore, was an Orator of the _Stoical_, and Scaurus of the _Antique_\ncast: but they are both entitled to our commendation; because, in _them_,\neven this formal and unpromising species of Elocution has appeared among\nus with some degree of merit. For as in the Theatre, so in the Forum, I\nwould not have our applause confined to those alone who act the busy, and\nmore important characters; but reserve a share of it for the quiet and\nunambitious performer who is distinguished by a simple truth of gesture,\nwithout any violence. As I have mentioned the Stoics, I must take some\nnotice of Q. Aelius Tubero, the grandson of L. Paullus, who made his\nappearance at the time we are speaking of. He was never esteemed an\nOrator, but was a man of the most rigid virtue, and strictly conformable\nto the doctrine he professed: but, in truth, he was rather too crabbed. In\nhis Triumvirate, he declared, contrary to the opinion of P. Africanus his\nuncle, that the Augurs had no right of exemption from sitting in the\ncourts of justice: and as in his temper, so in his manner of speaking, he\nwas harsh, unpolished, and austere; on which account, he could never raise\nhimself to the honourable ports which were enjoyed by his ancestors. But\nhe was a brave and steady citizen, and a warm opposer of Gracchus, as\nappears from an Oration of Gracchus against him: we have likewise some of\nTubero's speeches against Gracchus. He was not indeed a shining Orator:\nbut he was a learned, and a very skilfull disputant.\n\n\"I find,\" said Brutus, \"that the case is much the same among us, as with\nthe Greeks; and that the Stoics, in general, are very judicious at an\nargument, which they conduct by certain rules of art, and are likewise\nvery neat and exact in their language; but if we take them from this, to\nspeak in Public, they make a poor appearance. Cato, however, must be\nexcepted; in whom, though as rigid a Stoic as ever existed, I could not\nwish for a more consummate degree of Eloquence: I can likewise discover a\nmoderate share of it in Fannius,--not so much in Rutilius;--but none at\nall in Tubero.\"--\"True,\" said I; \"and we may easily account for it: Their\nwhole attention was so closely confined to the study of Logic, that they\nnever troubled themselves to acquire the free, diffusive, and variegated\nstyle which is so necessary for a public Speaker. But your uncle, you\ndoubtless know, was wise enough to borrow only that from the Stoics, which\nthey were able to furnish for his purpose (the art of reasoning:) but for\nthe art of Speaking, he had recourse to the masters of Rhetoric, and\nexercised himself in the manner they directed. If, however, we must be\nindebted for everything to the Philosophers, the Peripatetic discipline\nis, in my mind, much the properest to form our language. For which reason,\nmy Brutus, I the more approve your choice, in attaching yourself to a\nsect, (I mean the Philosophers of the Old Academy,) in whose system, a\njust and accurate way of reasoning is enlivened by a perpetual sweetness\nand fluency of expression: but even the delicate and flowing style of the\nPeripatetics, and Academics, is not sufficient to complete an Orator; nor\nyet can he be complete without it. For as the language of the Stoics is\ntoo close, and contracted, to suit the ears of common people; so that of\nthe latter is too diffusive and luxuriant for a spirited contest in the\nForum, or a pleading at the bar. Who had a richer style than Plato? The\nPhilosophers tell us, that if Jupiter himself was to converse in Greek, he\nwould speak like _him_. Who also was more nervous than Aristotle? Who\nsweeter than Theophrastus? We are told that even Demosthenes attended the\nlectures of Plato, and was fond of reading what he published; which,\nindeed, is sufficiently evident from the turn, and the majesty of his\nlanguage and he himself has expressly mentioned it in one of his Letters.\nBut the style of this excellent Orator is, notwithstanding, much too\nfierce for the Academy; as that of the Philosophers is too mild and placid\nfor the Forum. I shall now, with your leave, proceed to the age and merits\nof the rest of the Roman Orators.\"--\"Nothing,\" said Atticus, \"(for I can\nsafely answer for my friend Brutus) would please us better.\"--\"Curio,\nthen,\" said I, \"was nearly of the age I have just mentioned,--a celebrated\nSpeaker, whose genius may be easily decided from his Orations. For, among\nseveral others, we have a noble Speech of his for Ser. Fulvius, in a\nprosecution for incest. When we were children, it was esteemed the best\nthen extant; but now it is almost overlooked among the numerous\nperformances of the same kind which have been lately published.\"--\"I am\nvery sensible,\" replied Brutus, \"to whom we are obliged for the numerous\nperformances you speak of.\"--\"And I am equally sensible,\" said I, \"who is\nthe person you intend: for I have at least done a service to my young\ncountrymen, by introducing a loftier, and more embellished way of\nspeaking, than was used before: and, perhaps, I have also done some harm,\nbecause after _mine_ appeared, the Speeches of our ancestors and\npredecessors began to be neglected by most people; though never by _me_,\nfor I can assure you, I always prefer them to my own.\"--\"But you must\nreckon me,\" said Brutus, \"among the _most people_; though I now see, from\nyour recommendation, that I have a great many books to read, of which\nbefore I had very little opinion.\"--\"But this celebrated Oration,\" said I,\n\"in the prosecution for incest, is in some places excessively puerile; and\nwhat is said in it of the passion of love, the inefficacy of questioning\nby tortures, and the danger of trusting to common hear-say, is indeed\npretty enough, but would be insufferable to the tutored ears of the\nmoderns, and to a people who are justly distinguished for the solidity of\ntheir knowledge. He likewise wrote several other pieces, spoke a number of\ngood Orations, and was certainly an eminent pleader; so that I much\nwonder, considering how long he lived, and the character he bore, that he\nwas never preferred to the Consulship. But I have a man here, [Footnote:\nHe refers, perhaps, to the Works of Gracchus, which he might then have in\nhis hand; or, more probably, to a statue of him, which stood near the\nplace where he and his friends were sitting.] (C. Gracchus) who had an\namazing genius, and the warmest application; and was a Scholar from his\nvery childhood: For you must not imagine, my Brutus, that we have ever yet\nhad a Speaker, whose language was richer and more copious than his.\"--\"I\nreally think so,\" answered Brutus; \"and he is almost the only author we\nhave, among the ancients, that I take the trouble to read.\" \"And he well\n_deserves_ it,\" said I; \"for the Roman name and literature were great\nlosers by his untimely fate. I wish he had transferred his affection for\nhis brother to his country! How easily, if he had thus prolonged his life,\nwould he have rivalled the glory of his father, and grandfather! In\nEloquence, I scarcely know whether we should yet have had his equal. His\nlanguage was noble; his sentiments manly and judicious; and his whole\nmanner great and striking. He wanted nothing but the finishing touch: for\nthough his first attempts were as excellent as they were numerous, he did\nnot live to complete them. In short, my Brutus, _he_, if any one, should\nbe carefully studied by the Roman youth: for he is able, not only to edge,\nbut to feed and ripen their talents. After _him_ appeared C. Galba, the\nson of the eloquent Servius, and the son-in-law of P. Crassus, who was\nboth an eminent Speaker, and a skilful Civilian. He was much commended by\nour fathers, who respected him for the sake of _his_: but he had the\nmisfortune to be stopped in his career. For being tried by the Mamilian\nlaw, as a party concerned in the conspiracy to support Jugurtha, though he\nexerted all his abilities to defend himself, he was unhappily cast. His\nperoration, or, as it is often called, his epilogue, is still extant; and\nwas so much in repute, when we were school-boys, that we used to learn it\nby heart: he was the first member of the Sacerdotal College, since the\nbuilding of Rome, who was publicly tried and condemned. As to P. Scipio,\nwho died in his Consulship, he neither spoke much, nor often: but he was\ninferior to no one in the purity of his language, and superior to all in\nwit and pleasantry. His colleague L. Bestia, who begun his Tribuneship\nvery successfully, (for, by a law which he preferred for the purpose, he\nprocured the recall of Popillius, who had been exiled by the influence of\nCaius Gracchus) was a man of spirit, and a tolerable Speaker: but he did\nnot finish his Consulship so happily. For, in consequence of the invidious\nlaw of Mamilius above-mentioned, C. Galba one of the Priests, and the four\nConsular gentlemen L. Bestia, C. Cato, Sp. Albinus, and that excellent\ncitizen L. Opimius, who killed Gracchus; of which he was acquitted by the\npeople, though he had constantly sided against them,--were all condemned\nby their judges, who were of the Gracchan party. Very unlike him in his\nTribuneship, and indeed in every other part of his life, was that infamous\ncitizen C. Licinius Nerva; but he was not destitute of Eloquence. Nearly\nat the same time, (though, indeed, he was somewhat older) flourished C.\nFimbria, who was rather rough and abusive, and much too warm and hasty:\nbut his application, and his great integrity and firmness made him a\nserviceable Speaker in the Senate. He was likewise a tolerable Pleader,\nand Civilian, and distinguished by the same rigid freedom in the turn of\nhis language, as in that of his virtues. When we were boys, we used to\nthink his Orations worth reading; though they are now scarcely to be met\nwith. But C. Sextius Calvinus was equally elegant both in his taste, and\nhis language, though, unhappily, of a very infirm constitution:--when the\npain in his feet intermitted, he did not decline the trouble of pleading,\nbut he did not attempt it very often. His fellow-citizens, therefore, made\nuse of his advice, whenever they had occasion for it; but of his\npatronage, only when his health permitted. Cotemporary with these, my good\nfriend, was your namesake M. Brutus, the disgrace of your noble family;\nwho, though he bore that honourable name, and had the best of men, and an\neminent Civilian, for his father, confined his practice to accusations, as\nLycurgus is said to have done at Athens. He never sued for any of our\nmagistracies; but was a severe, and a troublesome prosecutor: so that we\neasily see that, in _him_, the natural goodness of the flock was corrupted\nby the vicious inclinations of the man. At the same time lived L.\nCaesulenus, a man of Plebeian rank, and a professed accuser, like the\nformer: I myself heard him in his old age, when he endeavoured, by the\nAquilian law, to subject L. Sabellius to a fine, for a breach of justice.\nBut I should not have taken any notice of such a low-born wretch, if I had\nnot thought that no person I ever heard, could give a more suspicious turn\nto the cause of the defendant, or exaggerate it to a higher degree of\ncriminality. T. Albucius, who lived in the same age, was well versed in\nthe Grecian literature, or, rather, was almost a Greek himself. I speak of\nhim, as I think; but any person, who pleases, may judge what he was by his\nOrations. In his youth, he studied at Athens, and returned from thence a\nthorough proficient in the doctrine of Epicurus; which, of all others, is\nthe least adapted to form an orator. His cotemporary, Q. Catulus, was an\naccomplished Speaker, not in the ancient taste, but (unless any thing more\nperfect can be exhibited) in the finished style of the moderns. He had a\nplentiful stock of learning; an easy, winning elegance, not only in his\nmanners and disposition, but in his very language; and an unblemished\npurity and correctness of style. This may be easily seen by his Orations;\nand particularly, by the History of his Consulship, and of his subsequent\ntransactions, which he composed in the soft and agreeable manner of\nXenophon, and made a present of to the poet, A. Furius, an intimate\nacquaintance of his: but this performance is as little known, as the three\nbooks of Scaurus before-mentioned.\"--\"Indeed, I must confess,\" said\nBrutus, \"that both the one and the other, are perfectly unknown to me: but\nthat is entirely my _own_ fault. I shall now, therefore, request a sight\nof them from _you_; and am resolved, in future, to be more careful in\ncollecting such valuable curiosities.\"--\"This Catulus,\" said I, \"as I have\njust observed, was distinguished by the purity of his language; which,\nthough a material accomplishment, is too much neglected by most of the\nRoman orators; for as to the elegant tone of his voice, and the sweetness\nof his accent, as you knew his son, it will be needless to take any notice\nof them. His son, indeed, was not in the list of Orators: but whenever he\nhad occasion to deliver his sentiments in public, he neither wanted\njudgment, nor a neat and liberal turn of expression. Nay, even the father\nhimself was not reckoned the foremost in the list of Orators: but still he\nhad that kind of merit, that notwithstanding, after you had heard two or\nthree speakers, who were particularly eminent in their profession, you\nmight judge him inferior; yet, whenever you heard him _alone_, and without\nan immediate opportunity of making a comparison, you would not only be\nsatisfied with him, but scarcely wish for a better advocate. As to Q.\nMetellus Numidicus, and his Colleague M. Silanus, they spoke, on matters\nof government, with as much eloquence as was really necessary for men of\ntheir illustrious character, and of consular dignity. But M. Aurelius\nScaurus, though he spoke in public but seldom, always spoke very neatly,\nand he had a more elegant command of the Roman language than most men. A.\nAlbinus was a speaker of the same kind; but Albinus, the Flamen, was\nesteemed an _orator_. Q. Capio too had a great deal of spirit, and was a\nbrave citizen: but the unlucky chance of war was imputed to him as a\ncrime, and the general odium of the people proved his ruin. C. and L.\nMemmius were likewise indifferent orators, and distinguished by the\nbitterness and asperity of their accusations: for they prosecuted many,\nbut seldom spoke for the defendant. Sp. Torius, on the other hand, was\ndistinguished by his _popular_ way of speaking; the very same man, who, by\nhis corrupt and frivolous law, diminished [Footnote: By dividing great\npart of them among the people.] the taxes which were levied on the public\nlands. M. Marcellus, the father of Aeserninus, though not reckoned a\nprofessed pleader, was a prompt, and, in some degree, a practised speaker;\nas was also his son P. Lentulus. L. Cotta likewise, a man of Praetorian\nrank, was esteemed a tolerable orator; but he never made any great\nprogress; on the contrary, he purposely endeavoured, both in the choice of\nhis words, and the rusticity of his pronunciation, to imitate the manner\nof the ancients. I am indeed sensible that in this instance of Cotta, and\nin many others, I have, and shall again insert in the list of Orators,\nthose who, in reality, had but little claim to the character. For it was,\nprofessedly, my design, to collect an account of all the Romans, without\nexception, who made it their business to excel in the profession of\n_Eloquence_: and it may be easily seen from this account, by what slow\ngradations they advanced, and how excessively difficult it is, in every\nthing, to rise to the summit of perfection. As a proof of this, how many\norators have been already recounted, and how much time have we bestowed\nupon them, before we could force our way, after infinite fatigue and\ndrudgery, as, among the Greek's, to _Demosthenes_ and _Hyperides_, so now,\namong our own countrymen, to _Antonius_ and _Crassus_! For, in my mind,\nthese were consummate Orators, and the first among the Romans whose\ndiffusive Eloquence rivalled the glory of the Greeks. Antonius discovered\nevery thing which could be of service to his cause, and that in the very\norder in which it would be most so: and as a skilful General posts the\ncavalry, the infantry, and the light troops, where each of them can act to\nmost advantage; so Antonius drew up his arguments in those parts of his\ndiscourse, where they were likely to have the best effect. He had a quick\nand retentive memory, and a frankness of manner which precluded any\nsuspicion of artifice. All his speeches were, in appearance, the\nunpremeditated effusions of an honest heart; and yet, in reality, they\nwere preconcerted with so much skill, that the judges were, sometimes, not\nso well prepared, as they should have been, to withstand the force of\nthem. His language, indeed, was not so refined as to pass for the standard\nof elegance; for which reason he was thought to be rather a careless\nspeaker; and yet, on the other hand, it was neither vulgar nor incorrect,\nbut of that solid and judicious turn, which constitutes the real merit of\nan Orator, as to the choice of his words. For, as to a purity of style,\nthough this is certainly (as before observed) a very commendable quality,\nit is not so much so for its intrinsic consequence, as because it is too\ngenerally neglected. In short, it is not so meritorious to speak our\nnative tongue correctly, as it is scandalous to speak it otherwise; nor is\nit so much the property of a good Orator, as of a well-bred Citizen. But\nin the choice of his words (in which he had more regard to their weight\nthan their brilliance) and likewise in the structure of his language, and\nthe compass of his periods, Antonius conformed himself to the dictates of\nreason, and, in a great measure, to the nicer rules of art: though his\nchief excellence was a judicious management of the figures and decorations\nof sentiment. This was likewise the distinguishing excellence of\nDemosthenes; in which he was so far superior to all others, as to be\nallowed, in the opinion of the best judges, to be the Prince of Orators.\nFor the _figures_ (as they are called by the Greeks) are the principal\nornaments of an able speaker, I mean those which contribute not so much to\npaint and embellish our language, as to give a lustre to our sentiments.\nBut besides these, of which Antonius had a great command, he had a\npeculiar excellence in his manner of delivery, both as to his voice and\ngesture; for the latter was such as to correspond to the meaning of every\nsentence, without beating time to the words. His hands, his shoulders, the\nturn of his body, the stamp of his foot, his posture, his air, and, in\nshort, his every motion, was adapted to his language and sentiments: and\nhis voice was strong and firm, though naturally hoarse;--a defect which he\nalone was capable of improving to his advantage; for in capital causes, it\nhad a mournful dignity of accent, which was exceedingly proper, both to\nwin the assent of the judges, and excite their compassion for a suffering\nclient: so that in _him_ the observation of Demosthenes was eminently\nverified, who being asked what was the _first_ quality of a good Orator,\nwhat the _second_, and what the _third_, constantly replied, A good\nenunciation.\n\n\"But many thought that he was equalled, and others that he was even\nexcelled by Lucius Crassus. All, however, were agreed in this, that\nwhoever had either of them for his advocate, had no cause to wish for a\nbetter. For my own part, notwithstanding the uncommon merit I have\nascribed to Antonius, I must also acknowlege, that there cannot be a more\nfinished character than that of Crassus. He possessed a wonderful dignity\nof elocution, with an agreeable mixture of wit and pleasantry, which was\nperfectly genteel, and without the smallest tincture of scurrility. His\nstyle was correct and elegant without stiffness or affectation: his method\nof reasoning was remarkably clear and distinct: and when his cause turned\nupon any point of law, or equity, he had an inexhaustible fund of\narguments, and comparative illustrations. For as Antonius had an admirable\nturn for suggesting apposite hints, and either suppressing or exciting the\nsuspicions of the hearer; so no man could explain and define, or discuss a\npoint of equity, with a more copious facility than Crassus; as\nsufficiently appeared upon many other occasions, but particularly in the\ncause of M. Curius, which was tried before the Centum Viri. For he urged a\ngreat variety of arguments in the defence of right and equity, against the\nliteral _jubeat_ of the law; and supported them by such a numerous series\nof precedents, that he overpowered Q. Scaevola (a man of uncommon\npenetration, and the ablest Civilian of his time) though the case before\nthem was only a matter of legal right. But the cause was so ably managed\nby the two advocates, who were nearly of an age, and both of consular\nrank, that while each endeavoured to interpret the law in favour of his\nclient, Crassus was universally allowed to be the best Lawyer among the\nOrators, and Scaevola to be the most eloquent Civilian of the age: for the\nlatter could not only discover with the nicest precision what was\nagreeable to law and equity; but had likewise a conciseness and propriety\nof expression, which was admirably adapted to his purpose. In short, he\nhad such a wonderful vein of oratory in commenting, explaining, and\ndiscussing, that I never beheld his equal; though in amplifying,\nembellishing, and refuting, he was rather to be dreaded as a formidable\ncritic, than admired as an eloquent speaker.\"--\"Indeed,\" said Brutus,\n\"though I always thought I sufficiently understood the character of\nScaevola, by the account I had heard of him from C. Rutilius, whose\ncompany I frequented for the sake of his acquaintance with him, I had not\nthe least idea of his merit as an orator. I am now, therefore, not a\nlittle pleased to be informed, that our Republic has had the honour of\nproducing so accomplished a man, and such an excellent genius.\"--\"Really,\nmy Brutus,\" said I, \"you may take it from me, that the Roman State had\nnever been adorned with two finer characters than these. For, as I have\nbefore observed, that the one was the best Lawyer among the Orators, and\nthe other the best Speaker among the Civilians of his time; so the\ndifference between them, in all other respects, was of such a nature, that\nit would almost be impossible for you to determine which of the two you\nwould rather choose to resemble. For, as Crassus was the closest of all\nour elegant speakers, so Scaevola was the most elegant among those who\nwere distinguished by the frugal accuracy of their language: and as\nCrassus tempered his affability with a proper share of severity, so the\nrigid air of Scaevola was not destitute of the milder graces of an affable\ncondescension. Though this was really their character, it is very possible\nthat I may be thought to have embellished it beyond the bounds of truth,\nto give an agreeable air to my narrative: but as your favourite sect, my\nBrutus, the Old Academy, has defined all Virtue to be a just Mediocrity,\nit was the constant endeavour of these two eminent men to pursue this\nGolden Mean; and yet it so happened, that while each of them shared a part\nof the other's excellence, he preserved his own entire.\"--\"To speak what I\nthink,\" replied Brutus, \"I have not only acquired a proper acquaintance\nwith their characters from your account of them, but I can likewise\ndiscover, that the same comparison might be drawn between _you_ and Serv.\nSulpicius, which you have just been making between Crassus and Scaevola.\"\n--\"In what manner?\" said I.--\"Because _you_,\" replied Brutus, \"have taken\nthe pains to acquire as extensive a knowledge of the law as is necessary\nfor an Orator; and Sulpicius, on the other hand, took care to furnish\nhimself with sufficient eloquence to support the character of an able\nCivilian. Besides, your age corresponded as nearly to his, as the age of\nCrassus did to that of Scaevola.\"--\"As to my own abilities,\" said I, \"the\nrules of decency forbid me to speak of them: but your character of Servius\nis a very just one, and I may freely tell you what I think of him. There\nare few, I believe, who have applied themselves more assiduously to the\nart of Speaking than he did, or indeed to the study of every useful\nscience. In our youth, we both of us followed the same liberal exercises;\nand he afterwards accompanied me to Rhodes, to pursue those studies which\nmight equally improve him as a Man and a Scholar; but when he returned\nfrom thence, he appears to me to have been rather ambitious to be the\nforemost man in a secondary profession, than the second in that which\nclaims the highest dignity. I will not pretend to say that he could not\nhave ranked himself among the foremost in the latter profession; but he\nrather chose to be, what he actually made himself, the first Lawyer of his\ntime.\"--\"Indeed!\" said Brutus: \"and do you really prefer Servius to Q.\nScaevola?\"--\"My opinion,\" said I, \"Brutus, is, that Q. Scaevola, and many\nothers, had a thorough practical knowledge of the law; but that Servius\nalone understood it as _science_: which he could never have done by the\nmere study of the law, and without a previous acquaintance with the art\nwhich teaches us to divide a whole into its subordinate parts, to, decide\nan indeterminate idea by an accurate definition: to explain what is\nobscure, by a clear interpretation; and first to discover what things are\nof a _doubtful_ nature, then to distinguish them by their different\ndegrees of probability; and lastly, to be provided with a certain rule or\nmeasure by which we may judge what is true, and what false, and what\ninferences fairly may, or may not be deduced from any given premises. This\nimportant art he applied to those subjects which, for want of it, were\nnecessarily managed by others without due order and precision.\"--\"You\nmean, I suppose,\" said Brutus, \"the Art of Logic.\"--\"You suppose very\nright,\" answered I: \"but he added to it an extensive acquaintance with\npolite literature, and an elegant manner of expressing himself; as is\nsufficiently evident from the incomparable writings he has left behind\nhim. And as he attached himself, for the improvement of his eloquence, to\nL. Lucilius Balbus, and C. Aquilius Gallus, two very able speakers; he\neffectually thwarted the prompt celerity of the latter (though a keen,\nexperienced man) both in supporting and refuting a charge, by his accuracy\nand precision, and overpowered the deliberate formality of Balbus (a man\nof great learning and erudition) by his adroit and dextrous method of\narguing: so that he equally possessed the good qualities of both, without\ntheir defects. As Crassus, therefore, in my mind, acted more prudently\nthan Scaevola; (for the latter was very fond of pleading causes, in which\nhe was certainly inferior to Crassus; whereas the former never engaged\nhimself in an unequal competition with Scaevola, by assuming the character\nof a Civilian;) so Servius pursued a plan which sufficiently discovered\nhis wisdom; for as the profession of a Pleader, and a Lawyer, are both of\nthem held in great esteem, and give those who are masters of them the most\nextensive influence among their fellow-citizens; he acquired an undisputed\nsuperiority in the one, and improved himself as much in the other as was\nnecessary to support the authority of the Civil Law, and promote him to\nthe dignity of a Consul.\"--\"This is precisely the opinion I had formed of\nhim,\" said Brutus. \"For, a few years ago I heard him often and very\nattentively at Samos, when I wanted to be instructed by him in the\nPontifical Law, as far as it is connected with the Civil; and I am now\ngreatly confirmed in my opinion of him, by finding that it coincides so\nexactly with yours. I am likewise not a little pleased to observe, that\nthe equality of your ages, your sharing the same honours and preferments,\nand the vicinity of your respective studies and professions, has been so\nfar from precipitating either of you into that envious detraction of the\nother's merit, which most people are tormented with, that, instead of\nwounding your mutual friendship, it has only served to increase and\nstrengthen it; for, to my own knowlege, he had the same affection for, and\nthe same favourable sentiments of _you_, which I now discover in you\ntowards _him_. I cannot, therefore, help regretting very sincerely, that\nthe Roman State has so long been deprived of the benefit of his advice,\nand of your Eloquence;--a circumstance which is indeed calamitous enough\nin itself; but must appear much more so to him who considers into what\nhands that once respectable authority has been of late, I will not say\ntransferred, but forcibly wrested.\"--\"You certainly forget,\" said Atticus,\n\"that I proposed, when we began the conversation, to drop all matters of\nState; by all means, therefore, let us keep to our plan: for if we once\nbegin to repeat our grievances, there will be no end, I need not say to\nour inquiries, but to our sighs and lamentations.\"--\"Let us proceed,\nthen,\" said I, \"without any farther digression, and pursue the plan we set\nout upon. Crassus (for he is the Orator we were just speaking of) always\ncame into the Forum ready prepared for the combat. He was expected with\nimpatience, and heard with pleasure. When he first began his Oration\n(which he always did in a very accurate style) he seemed worthy of the\ngreat expectations he had raised. He was very moderate in the sway of his\nbody, had no remarkable variation of voice, never advanced from the ground\nhe stood upon, and seldom stamped his foot: his language was forcible, and\nsometimes warm and pathetic; he had many strokes of humour, which were\nalways tempered with a becoming dignity; and, what is a difficult\ncharacter to hit, he was at once very florid, and very concise. In a close\ncontest, he never met with his equal; and there was scarcely any kind of\ncauses, in which he had not signalized his abilities; so that he enrolled\nhimself very early among the first Orators of the time. He accused C.\nCarbo, though a man of great Eloquence, when he was but a youth;--and\ndisplayed his talents in such a manner, that they were not only applauded,\nbut admired by every body. He afterwards defended the Virgin Licinia, when\nhe was only twenty-seven years of age; on which occasion he discovered an\nuncommon share of Eloquence, as is evident from those parts of his Oration\nwhich he left behind him in writing. As he was then desirous to have the\nhonour of settling the colony of Narbonne (as he afterwards did) he\nthought it adviseable to recommend himself, by undertaking the management\nof some popular cause. His Oration, in support of the act which was\nproposed for that purpose, is still extant; and discovers a greater\nmaturity of genius than might have been expected at that time of life. He\nafterwards pleaded many other causes: but his tribuneship was such a\nremarkably silent one, that if he had not supped with Granius the beadle\nwhen he enjoyed that office (a circumstance which has been twice mentioned\nby Lucilius) we should scarcely have known that a tribune of that name had\nexisted.\"--\"I believe so,\" replied Brutus: \"but I have heard as little of\nthe tribuneship of Scaevola, though I must naturally suppose that he was\nthe colleague of Crassus.\"--\"He was so,\" said I, \"in all his other\npreferments; but he was not tribune till the year after him; and when he\nsat in the Rostrum in that capacity, Crassus spoke in support of the\nServilian law. I must observe, however, that Crassus had not Scaevola for\nhis colleague in the censorship; for none of the Scaevolas ever sued for\nthat office. But when the last-mentioned Oration of Crassus was published\n(which I dare say you have frequently read) he was thirty-four years of\nage, which was exactly the difference between his age and mine. For he\nsupported the law I have just been speaking of, in the very consulship\nunder which I was born; whereas he himself was born in the consulship of\nQ. Caepio, and C. Laelius, about three years later than Antonius. I have\nparticularly noticed this circumstance, to specify the time when the Roman\nEloquence attained its first _maturity_; and was actually carried to such\na degree of perfection, as to leave no room for any one to carry it\nhigher, unless by the assistance of a more complete and extensive\nknowledge of philosophy, jurisprudence, and history.\"--\"But does there,\"\nsaid Brutus, \"or will there ever exist a man, who is furnished with all\nthe united accomplishments you require?\"--\"I really don't know,\" said I;\n\"but we have a speech made by Crassus in his consulship, in praise of Q.\nCaepio, intermingled with a defence of his conduct, which, though a short\none if we consider it as an Oration, is not so as a Panegyric;--and\nanother, which was his last, and which he spoke in the 48th year of his\nage, at the time he was censor. In these we have the genuine complexion of\nEloquence, without any painting or disguise: but his periods (I mean\nCrassus's) were generally short and concise; and he was fond of expressing\nhimself in those minuter sentences, or members, which the Greeks call\nColons.\"--\"As you have spoken so largely,\" said Brutus, \"in praise of the\ntwo last-mentioned Orators, I heartily wish that Antonius had left us some\nother specimen of his abilities, than his trifling Essay on the Art of\nSpeaking, and Crassus more than he has: by so doing, they would have\ntransmitted their fame to _posterity_; and to us a valuable system of\nEloquence. For as to the elegant language of Scaevola, we have sufficient\nproofs of it in the Orations he has left behind him.\"--\"For my part,\" said\nI, \"the Oration I was speaking of, on Caepio's case, has been my pattern,\nand my tutoress, from my very childhood. It supports the dignity of the\nSenate, which was deeply interested in the debate; and excites the\njealousy of the audience against the party of the judges and accusers,\nwhose power it was necessary to expose in the most popular terms. Many\nparts of it are very strong and nervous, many others very cool and\ncomposed; and some are distinguished by the asperity of their language,\nand not a few by their wit and pleasantry: but much more was said than was\ncommitted to writing, as is sufficiently evident from several heads of the\nOration, which are merely proposed without any enlargement or explanation.\nBut the oration in his censorship against his colleague Cn. Domitius, is\nnot so much an Oration, as an analysis of the subject, or a general sketch\nof what he had said, with here and there a few ornamental touches, by way\nof specimen: for no contest was ever conducted with greater spirit than\nthis. Crassus, however, was eminently distinguished by the popular turn of\nhis language: but that of Antonius was better adapted to judicial trials,\nthan to a public debate. As we have had occasion to mention him, Domitius\nhimself must not be left unnoticed: for though he is not enrolled in the\nlist of Orators, he had a sufficient share both of utterance and genius,\nto support his character as a magistrate and his dignity as a consul. I\nmight likewise observe of C. Caelius, that he was a man of great\napplication, and many eminent qualities, and had eloquence enough to\nsupport the private interests of his friends, and his own dignity in the\nState. At the same time lived M. Herennius, who was reckoned among the\nmiddling Orators, whose principal merit was the purity and correctness of\ntheir language; and yet, in a suit for the consulship, he got the better\nof L. Philippus, a man of the first rank and family, and of the most\nextensive connections, and who was likewise a member of the College, and a\nvery eloquent speaker. _Then_ also lived C. Clodius, who, besides his\nconsequence as a nobleman of the first distinction, and a man of the most\npowerful influence, was likewise possessed of a moderate share of\nEloquence. Nearly of the same age was C. Titius, a Roman knight, who, in\nmy judgment, arrived at as high a degree of perfection as a Roman orator\nwas able to do, without the assistance of the Grecian literature, and a\ngood share of practice. His Orations have so many delicate turns, such a\nnumber of well-chosen examples, and such an agreeable vein of politeness,\nthat they almost seem to have been composed in the true Attic style. He\nlikewise transferred his delicacies into his very Tragedies, with\ningenuity enough, I confess, but not in the tragic taste. But the poet L.\nAfranius, whom he studiously imitated, was a very smart writer, and, as\nyou well know, a man of great expression in the dramatic way. Q. Rubrius\nVarro, who with C. Marius, was declared an enemy by the Senate, was\nlikewise a warm, and a very spirited prosecutor. My relation, M.\nGratidius, was a plausible speaker of the same kind, well versed in the\nGrecian literature, formed by nature for the profession of Eloquence, and\nan intimate acquaintance of M. Antonius: he commanded under him in\nCilicia, where he lost his life: and he once commenced a prosecution\nagainst C. Fimbria, the father of M. Marius Gratidianus. There have\nlikewise been several among the Allies, and the Latins, who were esteemed\ngood Orators; as, for instance, Q. Vettius of Vettium, one of the Marsi,\nwhom I myself was acquainted with, a man of sense, and a concise speaker;\n--the Q. and D. Valerii of Sora, my neighbours and acquaintances, who were\nnot so remarkable for their talent of speaking, as for their skill both in\nthe Greek and Roman literature; and C. Rusticellus of Bononia, an\nexperienced Orator, and a man of great natural volubility. But the most\neloquent of all those who were not citizens of Rome, was T. Betucius\nBarrus of Asculum, some of whose Orations, which were spoken in that city,\nare still extant: that which he made at Rome against Caepio, is really an\nexcellent one: the speech which Caepio delivered in answer to it, was made\nby Aelius, who composed a number of Orations, but pronounced none himself.\nBut among those of a remoter date, L. Papirius of Fregellae in Latium, who\nwas almost cotemporary with Ti. Gracchus, was universally esteemed the\nmost eloquent: we have a speech of his in vindication of the Fregellani,\nand the Latin Colonies, which was delivered before the Senate.\"--\"And what\nthen is the merit,\" said Brutus, \"which you mean to ascribe to these\nprovincial Orators?\"--\"What else,\" replied I, \"but the very same which I\nhave ascribed to the city-orators; excepting that their language is not\ntinctured with the same fashionable delicacy?\"--\"What fashionable delicacy\ndo you mean?\" said he.--\"I cannot,\" said I, \"pretend to define it: I only\nknow that there is such a quality existing. When you go to your province\nin Gaul, you will be convinced of it. You will there find many expressions\nwhich are not current in Rome; but these may be easily changed, and\ncorrected. But, what is of greater importance, our Orators have a\nparticular accent in their manner of pronouncing, which is more elegant,\nand has a more agreeable effect than any other. This, however, is not\npeculiar to the Orators, but is equally common to every well-bred citizen.\nI myself remember that T. Tineas, of Placentia, who was a very facetious\nman, once engaged in a repartee skirmish with my old friend Q. Granius,\nthe public crier.\"--\"Do you mean that Granius,\" said Brutus, \"of whom\nLucilius has related such a number of stories?\"--\"The very same,\" said I:\n\"but though Tineas said as many smart things as the other, Granius at last\noverpowered him by a certain vernacular _gout_, which gave an additional\nrelish to his humour: so that I am no longer surprised at what is said to\nhave happened to Theophrastus, when he enquired of an old woman who kept a\nstall, what was the price of something which he wanted to purchase. After\ntelling him the value of it,--\"Honest _stranger_,\" said she, \"I cannot\nafford it for less\": \"an answer which nettled him not a little, to think\nthat _he_ who had resided almost all his life at Athens, and spoke the\nlanguage very correctly, should be taken at last for a foreigner. In the\nsame manner, there is, in my opinion, a certain accent as peculiar to the\nnative citizens of Rome, as the other was to those of Athens. But it is\ntime for us to return home; I mean to the Orators of our own growth. Next,\ntherefore, to the two capital Speakers above-mentioned, (that is Crassus\nand Antonius) came L. Philippus,--not indeed till a considerable time\nafterwards; but still he must be reckoned the next. I do not mean,\nhowever, though nobody appeared in the interim who could dispute the prize\nwith him, that he was entitled to the second, or even the third post of\nhonour. For, as in a Chariot-race I cannot properly consider _him_ as\neither the second, or third winner, who has scarcely got clear of the\nstarting-post, before the first has reached the goal; so, among Orators, I\ncan scarcely honour him with the name of a competitor, who has been so far\ndistanced by the foremost as hardly to appear on the same ground with him.\nBut yet there were certainly some talents to be observed in Philippus,\nwhich any person who considers them, without subjecting them to a\ncomparison with the superior merits of the two before-mentioned, must\nallow to have been respectable. He had an uncommon freedom of address, a\nlarge fund of humour, great facility in the invention of his sentiments,\nand a ready and easy manner of expressing them. He was likewise, for the\ntime he lived in, a great adept in the literature of the Greeks; and, in\nthe heat of a debate, he could sting, and gash, as well as ridicule his\nopponents. Almost cotemporary with these was L. Gellius, who was not so\nmuch to be valued for his positive, as for his negative merits: for he was\nneither destitute of learning, nor invention, nor unacquainted with the\nhistory and the laws of his country; besides which, he had a tolerable\nfreedom of expression. But he happened to live at a time when many\nexcellent Orators made their appearance; and yet he served his friends\nupon many occasions to good purpose: in short, his life was so long, that\nhe was successively cotemporary with a variety of Orators of different\ndates, and had an extensive series of practice in judicial causes. Nearly\nat the same time lived D. Brutus, who was fellow-consul with Mamercus;--\nand was equally skilled both in the Grecian and Roman literature. L.\nScipio likewise was not an unskilful Speaker; and Cnaeus Pompeius, the son\nof Sextus, had some reputation as an Orator; for his brother Sextus\napplied the excellent genius he was possessed of, to acquire a thorough\nknowledge of the Civil Law, and a complete acquaintance with geometry and\nthe doctrine of the Stoics. A little before these, M. Brutus, and very\nsoon after him, C. Bilienus, who was a man of great natural capacity, made\nthemselves, by nearly the same application, equally eminent in the\nprofession of the law;--the latter would have been chosen Consul, if he\nhad not been thwarted by the repeated promotion of Marius, and some other\ncollateral embarrassments which attended his suit. But the eloquence of\nCn. Octavius, which was wholly unknown before his elevation to the\nConsulship, was effectually displayed, after his preferment to that\noffice, in a great variety of speeches. It is, however, time for us to\ndrop those who were only classed in the number of good _speakers_, and\nturn our attention to such as were really _Orators_.\"--\"I think so too,\"\nreplied Atticus; \"for I understood that you meant to give us an account,\nnot of those who took great pains to be eloquent, but of those who were so\nin reality.\"--\"C. Julius then,\" said I, (the son of Lucius) was certainly\nsuperior, not only to his predecessors, but to all his cotemporaries, in\nwit and humour: he was not, indeed, a nervous and striking Orator, but, in\nthe elegance, the pleasantry, and the agreeableness of his manner, he has\nnot been excelled by any man. There are some Orations of his still extant,\nin which, as well as in his Tragedies, we may discover a pleasing\ntranquillity of expression with very little energy. P. Cethegus, his\ncotemporary, had always enough to say on matters of civil regulation; for\nhe had studied and comprehended them with the minutest accuracy; by which\nmeans he acquired an equal authority in the Senate with those who had\nserved the office of consul, and though he made no figure in a public\ndebate, he was a serviceable veteran in any suit of a private nature. Q.\nLucretius Vispillo was an acute Speaker, and a good Civilian in the same\nkind of causes: but Osella was better qualified for a public harangue,\nthan to conduct a judicial process. T. Annius Velina was likewise a man of\nsense, and a tolerable pleader; and T. Juventius had a great deal of\npractice in the same way:--the latter indeed was rather too heavy and\nunanimated, but at the same time he was keen and artful, and knew how to\nseize every advantage which was offered by his antagonist; to which we may\nadd, that he was far from being a man of no literature, and had an\nextensive knowledge of the Civil Law. His scholar, P. Orbius, who was\nalmost cotemporary with me, had no great practice as a pleader; but his\nskill in the Civil Law was nothing inferior to his master's. As to Titus\nAufidius, who lived to a great age, he was a professed imitator of both;\nand was indeed a worthy inoffensive man, but seldom spoke at the bar. His\nbrother, M. Virgilius, who when he was a tribune of the people, commenced\na prosecution against L. Sylla, then advanced to the rank of General, had\nas little practice as Aufidius. Virgilius's colleague, P. Magius, was more\ncopious and diffusive. But of all the Orators, or rather _Ranters_, I ever\nknew, who were totally illiterate and unpolished, and (I might have added)\nabsolutely coarse and rustic, the readiest and keenest, were Q. Sertorius,\nand C. Gorgonius, the one of consular, and the other of equestrian rank.\nT. Junius (the son of L.) who had served the office of tribune, and\nprosecuted and convicted P. Sextius of bribery, when he was praetor elect,\nwas a prompt and an easy speaker: he lived in great splendor, and had a\nvery promising genius; and, if he had not been of a weak, and indeed a\nsickly constitution, he would have advanced much farther than he did in\nthe road to preferment. I am sensible, however, that in the account I have\nbeen giving, I have included many who were neither real, nor reputed\nOrators; and that I have omitted others, among those of a remoter date,\nwho well deserved not only to have been mentioned, but to be recorded with\nhonour. But this I was forced to do, for want of better information: for\nwhat could I say concerning men of a distant age, none of whose\nproductions are now remaining, and of whom no mention is made in the\nwritings of other people? But I have omitted none of those who have fallen\nwithin the compass of my own knowledge, or that I myself remember to have\nheard. For I wish to make it appear, that in such a powerful and ancient\nrepublic as ours, in which the greatest rewards have been proposed to\nEloquence, though all have desired to be good speakers, not many have\nattempted the talk, and but very few have succeeded. But I shall give my\nopinion of every one in such explicit terms, that it may be easily\nunderstood whom I consider as a mere Declaimer, and whom as an Orator.\"\n\n\"About the same time, or rather something later than the above-mentioned\nJulius, but almost cotemporary with each other, were C. Cotta, P.\nSulpicius, Q. Varius, Cn. Pomponius, C. Curio, L. Fufius, M. Drusus, and\nP. Antistius; for no age whatsoever has been distingushed by a more\nnumerous progeny of Orators. Of these, Cotta and Sulpicius, both in my\nopinion, and in that of the Public at large, had an evident claim to the\npreference.\"--\"But wherefore,\" interrupted Atticus, \"do you say, _in your\nown opinion, and in that of the Public at large?_ In deciding the merits\nof an Orator, does the opinion of the vulgar, think you, always coincide\nwith that of the learned? Or rather does not one receive the approbation\nof the populace, while another of a quite opposite character is preferred\nby those who are better qualified to give their judgment?\"--\"You have\nstarted a very pertinent question,\" said I; \"but, perhaps, _the Public at\nlarge_ will not approve my answer to it.\"--\"And what concern need _that_\ngive you,\" replied Atticus, \"if it meets the approbation of Brutus?\"--\n\"Very true,\" said I; \"for I had rather my _sentiments_ on the\nqualifications of an Orator would please you and Brutus, than all the\nworld besides: but as to my _Eloquence_, I should wish _this_ to please\nevery one. For he who speaks in such a manner as to please the people,\nmust inevitably receive the approbation of the learned. As to the truth\nand propriety of what I hear, I am indeed to judge of this for myself, as\nwell as I am able: but the general merit of an Orator must and will be\ndecided by the effects which his eloquence produces. For (in my opinion at\nleast) there are three things which an Orator should be able to effect;\n_viz_. to _inform_ his hearers, to _please_ them, and to _move their\npassions_. By what qualities in the Speaker each of these, effects may be\nproduced, or by what deficiencies they are either lost, or but imperfectly\nperformed, is an enquiry which none but an artist can resolve: but whether\nan audience is really so affected by an Orator as shall best answer his\npurpose, must be left to their own feelings, and the decision of the\nPublic. The learned, therefore, and the people at large, have never\ndisagreed about who was a good Orator, and who was otherwise. For do you\nsuppose, that while the Speakers above-mentioned were in being, they had\nnot the same degree of reputation among the learned as among the populace?\nIf you had enquired of one of the latter, _who was the most eloquent man\nin the city_, he might have hesitated whether to say _Antonius_ or\n_Crassus_; or this man, perhaps, would have mentioned the one, and that\nthe other. But would any one have given the preference to _Philippus_,\nthough otherwise a smooth, a sensible, and a facetious Speaker?--that\n_Philippus_ whom we, who form our judgment upon these matters by rules of\nart, have decided to have been the next in merit? Nobody would, I am\ncertain. For it is the invariable, property of an accomplished Orator, to\nbe reckoned such in the opinion of the people. Though Antigenidas,\ntherefore, the musician, might say to his scholar, who was but coldly\nreceived by the Public, Play on, to please me and the Muses;--I shall say\nto my friend Brutus, when he mounts the Rostra, as he frequently does,--\nPlay to me and the people;--that those who hear him may be sensible of the\neffect of his Eloquence, while I can likewise amuse myself with remarking\nthe causes which produce it. When a Citizen hears an able Orator, he\nreadily credits what is said;--he imagines every thing to be true, he\nbelieves and relishes the force of it; and, in short, the persuasive\nlanguage of the Speaker wins his absolute, his hearty assent. You, who are\npossessed of a critical knowledge of the art, what more will you require?\nThe listening multitude is charmed and captivated by the force of his\nEloquence, and feels a pleasure which is not to be resisted. What here can\nyou find to censure? The whole audience is either flushed with joy, or\noverwhelmed with grief;--it smiles, or weeps,--it loves, or hates,--it\nscorns or envies,--and, in short, is alternately seized with the various\nemotions of pity, shame, remorse, resentment, wonder, hope, and fear,\naccording as it is influenced by the language, the sentiments, and the\naction of the speaker. In this case, what necessity is there to await the\nsanction of a critic? For here, whatever is approved by the feelings of\nthe people, must be equally so by men of taste and erudition: and, in this\ninstance of public decision, there can be no disagreement between the\nopinion of the vulgar, and that of the learned. For though many good\nSpeakers have appeared in every species of Oratory, which of them who was\nthought to excel the rest in the judgment of the populace, was not\napproved as such by every man of learning? or which of our ancestors, when\nthe choice of a pleader was left to his own option, did not immediately\nfix it either upon Crassus or Antonius? There were certainly many others\nto be had: but though any person might have hesitated to which of the\nabove two he should give the preference, there was nobody, I believe, who\nwould have made choice of a third. And in the time of my youth, when Cotta\nand Hortensius were in such high reputation, who, that had liberty to\nchoose for himself, would have employed any other?\"--\"But what occasion is\nthere,\" said Brutus, \"to quote the example of other speakers to support\nyour assertion? have we not seen what has always been the wish of the\ndefendant, and what the judgment of Hortensius, concerning yourself? for\nwhenever the latter shared a cause with you, (and I was often present on\nthose occasions) the peroration, which requires the greatest exertion of\nthe powers of Eloquence, was constantly left to _you_.\"--\"It was,\" said I;\n\"and Hortensius (induced, I suppose, by the warmth of his friendship)\nalways resigned the post of honour to me. But, as to myself, what rank I\nhold in the opinion of the people I am unable to determine: as to others,\nhowever, I may safely assert, that such of them as were reckoned most\neloquent in the judgment of the vulgar, were equally high in the\nestimation of the learned. For even Demosthenes himself could not have\nsaid what is related of Antimachus, a poet of Claros, who, when he was\nrehearsing to an audience assembled for the purpose, that voluminous piece\nof his which you are well acquainted with, and was deserted by all his\nhearers except Plato, in the midst of his performance, cried out, \"I\nshall proceed notwithstanding_; for Plato alone is of _more consequence to\nme than many thousands_.\" \"The remark was very just. For an abstruse poem,\nsuch as his, only requires the approbation of the judicious few; but a\ndiscourse intended for the people should be perfectly suited to their\ntaste. If Demosthenes, therefore, after being deserted by the rest of his\naudience, had even Plato left to hear him, and no one else, I will answer\nfor it, he could not have uttered another syllable. 'Nay, or could you\nyourself, my Brutus, if the whole assembly was to leave you, as it once\ndid Curio?\"--\"To open my whole mind to you,\" replied he, \"I must confess\nthat even in such causes as fall under the cognizance of a few select\njudges, and not of the people at large, if I was to be deserted by the\ncasual crowd who came to hear the trial, I should not be able to\nproceed.\"--\"The case, then, is plainly this,\" said I: \"as a flute, which\nwill not return its proper sound when it is applied to the lips, would be\nlaid aside by the musician as useless; so, the ears of the people are the\ninstrument upon which an Orator is to play: and if these refuse to admit\nthe breath he bestows upon them, or if the hearer, like a restive horse,\nwill not obey the spur, the speaker must cease to exert himself any\nfarther. There is, however, the exception to be made; the people sometimes\ngive their approbation to an orator who does not deserve it. But even here\nthey approve what they have had no opportunity of comparing with something\nbetter: as, for instance, when they are pleased with an indifferent, or,\nperhaps, a bad speaker. His abilities satisfy their expectation: they have\nseen nothing preferable: and, therefore, the merit of the day, whatever it\nmay happen to be, meets their full applause. For even a middling Orator,\nif he is possessed of any degree of Eloquence, will always captivate the\near; and the order and beauty of a good discourse has an astonishing\neffect upon the human mind. Accordingly, what common hearer who was\npresent when Q. Scaevola pleaded for M. Coponius, in the cause above-\nmentioned, would have wished for, or indeed thought it possible to find\nany thing which was more correct, more elegant, or more complete? When he\nattempted to prove, that, as M. Curius was left heir to the estate only in\ncase of the death of his future ward before he came of age, he could not\npossibly be a legal heir, when the expected ward was never born;--what did\nhe leave unsaid of the scrupulous regard which should be paid to the\nliteral meaning of every testament? what of the accuracy and preciseness\nof the old and established forms; of law? and how carefully did he specify\nthe manner in which the will would have been expressed, if it had intended\nthat Curius should be the heir in case of a total default of issue? in\nwhat a masterly manner did he represent the ill consequences to the\nPublic, if the letter of a will should be disregarded, its intention\ndecided by arbitrary conjectures, and the written bequests of plain\nilliterate men, left to the artful interpretation of a pleader? how often\ndid he urge the authority of his father, who had always been an advocate\nfor a strict adherence to the letter of a testament? and with what\nemphasis did he enlarge upon the necessity of supporting the common forms\nof law? All which particulars he discussed not only very artfully, and\nskilfully; but in such a neat,--such a close,--and, I may add, in so\nflorid, and so elegant a style, that there was not a single person among\nthe common part of the audience, who could expect any thing more complete,\nor even think it possible to exist. But when Crassus, who spoke on the\nopposite side, began with the story of a notable youth, who having found a\ncock-boat as he was rambling along the shore, took it into his head\nimmediately that he would build a ship to it;--and when he applied the\ntale to Scaevola, who, from the cock-boat of an argument [which he had\ndeduced from certain imaginary ill consequences to the Public] represented\nthe decision of a private will to be a matter of such importance as to\ndeserve he attention of the _Centum-viri_;--when Crassus, I say, in the\nbeginning of his discourse, had thus taken off the edge of the strongest\nplea of his antagonist, he entertained his hearers with many other turns\nof a similar kind; and, in a short time, changed the serious apprehensions\nof all who were present into open mirth and good-humour; which is one of\nthose three effects which I have just observed an Orator should be able to\nproduce. He then proceeded to remark that it was evidently the intention\nand the will of the testator, that in cafe, either by death, or default of\nissue, there should happen to be no son to fall to his charge, the\ninheritance should devolve to Curius:--'that most people in a similar case\nwould express themselves in the same manner, and that it would certainly\nstand good in law, and always had. By these, and many other observations\nof the same kind, he gained the assent of his hearers; which is another of\nthe three duties of an Orator. Lastly, he supported, at all events, the\ntrue meaning and spirit of a will, against the literal construction:\njustly observing, that there would be an endless cavilling about words,\nnot only in wills, but in all other legal deeds, if the real intention of\nthe party was to be disregarded: and hinting very smartly, that his\nfriend Scaevola had assumed a most unwarrantable degree of importance, if\nno person must afterwards presume to indite a legacy, but in the musty\nform which he himself might please to prescribe. As he enlarged on each of\nthese arguments with great force and propriety, supported them by a number\nof precedents, exhibited them in a variety of views, and enlivened them\nwith many occasional turns of wit and pleasantry, he gained so much\napplause, and gave such general satisfaction, that it was scarcely\nremembered that any thing had been said on the contrary side of the\nquestion. This was the third, and the most important duty we assigned to\nan Orator.\n\n\"Here, if one of the people was to be judge, the same person who had heard\nthe first Speaker with a degree of admiration, would, on hearing the\nsecond, despise himself for his former want of judgment:--whereas a man of\ntaste and erudition, on hearing Scaevola, would have observed that he was\nreally master of a rich and ornamental style; but if, on comparing the\nmanner in which each of them concluded his cause, it was to be enquired\nwhich of the two was the best Orator, the decision of the man of learning\nwould not have differed from that of the vulgar. What advantage, then, it\nwill be said, has the skilful critic over the illiterate hearer? A great\nand very important advantage; if it is indeed a matter of any consequence,\nto be able to discover by what means that which is the true and real end\nof speaking, is either obtained or lost. He has likewise this additional\nsuperiority, that when two or more Orators, as has frequently happened,\nhave shared the applauses of the Public, he can judge, on a careful\nobservation of the principal merits of each, what is the most perfect\ncharacter of Eloquence: since whatever does not meet the approbation of\nthe people, must be equally condemned by a more intelligent hearer. For as\nit is easily understood by the sound of a harp, whether the strings are\nskilfully touched; so it may likewise be discovered from the manner in\nwhich the passions of an audience are affected, how far the Speaker is\nable to command them. A man, therefore, who is a real connoisseur in the\nart, can sometimes by a single glance as he passes through the Forum, and\nwithout stopping to listen attentively to what is said, form a tolerable\njudgment of the ability of the Speaker. When he observes any of the Bench\neither yawning, or speaking to the person who is next to him, or looking\ncarelessly about him, or sending to enquire the time of day, or teazing\nthe Quaestor to dismiss the court; he concludes very naturally that the\ncause upon trial is not pleaded by an Orator who understands how to apply\nthe powers of language to the passions of the judges, as a skilful\nmusician applies his fingers to the harp. On the other hand, if, as he\npasses by, he beholds the judges looking attentively before them, as if\nthey were either receiving some material information, or visibly approved\nwhat they had already heard--if he sees them listening to the voice of the\nPleader with a kind of extasy like a fond bird to some melodious tune;--\nand, above all, if he discovers in their looks any strong indications of\npity, abhorrence, or any other emotion of the mind;--though he should not\nbe near enough to hear a single word, he immediately discovers that the\ncause is managed by a real Orator, who is either performing, or has\nalready played his part to good purpose.\"\n\nAfter I had concluded these digressive remarks, my two friends were kind\nenough to signify their approbation, and I resumed my subject.--\"As this\ndigression,\" said I, \"took its rise from Cotta and Sulpicius, whom I\nmentioned as the two most approved Orators of the age they lived in, I\nshall first return to _them,_ and afterwards notice the rest in their\nproper order, according to the plan we began upon. I have already observed\nthat there are two classes of _good_ Orators (for we have no concern with\nany others) of which the former are distinguished by the simple neatness\nand brevity of their language, and the latter by their copious dignity and\nelevation: but although the preference must always be given to that which\nis great and striking; yet, in speakers of real merit, whatever is most\nperfect of the kind, is justly entitled to our commendation. It must,\nhowever, be observed, that the close and simple Orator should be careful\nnot to sink into a driness and poverty of expression; while, on the other\nhand, the copious and more stately Speaker should be equally on his guard\nagainst a swelling and empty parade of words.\n\n\"To begin with Cotta, he had a ready, quick Invention, and spoke correctly\nand freely; and as he very prudently avoided every forcible exertion of\nhis voice on account of the weakness of his lungs, so his language was\nequally adapted to the delicacy of his constitution. There was nothing in\nhis style but what was neat, compact, and healthy; and (what may justly be\nconsidered as his greatest excellence) though he was scarcely able, and\ntherefore never attempted to force the passions of the judges by a strong\nand spirited elocution, yet he managed them so artfully, that the gentle\nemotions he raised in them, answered exactly the same purpose, and\nproduced the same effect, as the violent ones which were excited by\nSulpicius. For Sulpicius was really the most striking, and, if I may be\nallowed the expression, the most tragical Orator I ever heard:--his voice\nwas strong and sonorous, and yet sweet, and flowing:--his gesture, and the\nsway of his body, was graceful and ornamental, but in such a style as to\nappear to have been formed for the Forum, and not for the stage:--and his\nlanguage, though rapid and voluble, was neither loose nor exuberant. He\nwas a professed imitator of Crassus, while Cotta chose Antonius for his\nmodel: but the latter wanted the force of Antonius, and the former the\nagreeable humour of Crassus.\"--\"How extremely difficult, then,\" said\nBrutus, \"must be the art of speaking, when such consummate Orators as\nthese were each of them destitute of one of its principal beauties!\"--\"We\nmay likewise observe,\" said I, \"in the present instance, that two Orators\nmay have the highest degree of merit, who are totally unlike each other:\nfor none could be more so than Cotta and Sulpicius, and yet both of them\nwere far superior to any of their cotemporaries. It is therefore the\nbusiness of every intelligent matter to take notice what is the natural\nbent of his pupil's capacity; and, taking that for his guide, to imitate\nthe conduct of Socrates with his two scholars Theopompus and Ephorus, who,\nafter remarking the lively genius of the former, and the mild and timid\nbashfulness of the latter, is reported to have said that he applied a spur\nto the one, and a curb to the other. The Orations now extant, which bear\nthe name of Sulpicius, are supposed to have been written after his decease\nby my cotemporary P. Canutius, a man indeed of inferior rank, but who, in\nmy mind, had a great command of language. But we have not a single speech\nof Sulpicius that was really his own: for I have often heard him say, that\nhe neither had, nor ever could commit any thing of the kind to writing.\nAnd as to Cotta's speech in defence of himself, called a vindication of\nthe _Varian Law_, it was composed, at his own request, by L. Aelius. This\nAelius was a man of merit, and a very worthy Roman knight, who was\nthoroughly versed in the Greek and Roman literature. He had likewise a\ncritical knowledge of the antiquities of his country, both as to the date\nand particulars of every new improvement, and every memorable transaction,\nand was perfectly well read in the ancient writers;--a branch of learning\nin which he was succeeded by our friend Varro, a man of genius, and of the\nmost extensive erudition, who afterwards enlarged the plan by many\nvaluable collections of his own, and gave a much fuller and more elegant\nsystem of it to the Public. For Aelius himself chose to assume the\ncharacter of a Stoic, and neither aimed to be, nor ever was an Orator: but\nhe composed several Orations for other people to pronounce; as for Q.\nMetellus, F. Q. Caepio, and Q. Pompeius Rufus; though the latter composed\nthose speeches himself which he spoke in his own defence, but not without\nthe assistance of Aelius. For I myself was present at the writing of them,\nin the younger part of my life, when I used to attend Aelius for the\nbenefit of his instructions. But I am surprised, that Cotta, who was\nreally an excellent Orator, and a man of good learning, should be willing\nthat the trifling Speeches of Aelius mould be published to the world as\n_his_.\n\n\"To the two above-mentioned, no third person of the same age was esteemed\nan equal: Pomponius, however, was a Speaker much to my taste; or, at\nleast, I have very little fault to find with him. But there was no\nemployment for any in capital causes, excepting for those I have already\nmentioned; because Antonius, who was always courted on these occasions,\nwas very ready to give his service; and Crassus, though not so compliable,\ngenerally consented, on any pressing sollicitation, to give _his_. Those\nwho had not interest enough to engage either of these, commonly applied to\nPhilip, or Caesar; but when Cotta and Sulpicius were at liberty, they\ngenerally had the preference: so that all the causes in which any honour\nwas to be acquired, were pleaded by these six Orators. We may add, that\ntrials were not so frequent then as they are at present; neither did\npeople employ, as they do now, several pleaders on the same side of the\nquestion,--a practice which is attended with many disadvantages. For\nhereby we are often obliged to speak in reply to those whom we had not an\nopportunity of hearing; in which case, what has been alledged on the\nopposite side, is often represented to us either falsely or imperfectly;\nand besides, it is a very material circumstance, that I myself should be\npresent to see with what countenance my antagonist supports his\nallegations, and, still more so, to observe the effect of every part of\nhis discourse upon the audience. And as every defence should be conducted\nupon one uniform plan, nothing can be more improperly contrived, than to\nre-commence it by assigning the peroration, or pathetical part of it, to a\nsecond advocate. For every cause can have but one natural introduction and\nconclusion; and all the other parts of it, like the members of an animal\nbody, will best retain their proper strength and beauty, when they are\nregularly disposed and connected. We may add, that as it is very difficult\nin a single Oration of any length, to avoid saying something which does\nnot comport with the rest of it so well as it ought to do, how much more\ndifficult must it be to contrive that nothing shall be said, which does\nnot tally exactly with the speech of another person who has spoken before\nyou? But as it certainly requires more labour to plead a whole cause, than\nonly a part of it, and as many advantageous connections are formed by\nassisting in a suit in which several persons are interested, the custom,\nhowever preposterous in itself, has been readily adopted.\n\n\"There were some, however, who esteemed Curio the third best Orator of the\nage; perhaps, because his language was brilliant and pompous, and because\nhe had a habit (for which I suppose he was indebted to his domestic\neducation) of expressing himself with tolerable correctness: for he was a\nman of very little learning. But it is a circumstance of great importance,\nwhat sort of people we are used to converse with at home, especially in\nthe more early part of life; and what sort of language we have been\naccustomed to hear from our tutors and parents, not excepting the mother.\nWe have all read the Letters of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi; and\nare satisfied, that her sons were not so much nurtured in their mother's\nlap, as in the elegance and purity of her language. I have often too\nenjoyed the agreeable conversation of Laelia, the daughter of Caius, and\nobserved in her a strong tincture of her father's elegance. I have\nlikewise conversed with his two daughters, the Muciae, and his\ngranddaughters, the two Liciniae, with one of whom (the wife of Scipio)\nyou, my Brutus, I believe, have sometimes been in company.\"--\"I have,\"\nreplied he, \"and was much pleased with her conversation; and the more so,\nbecause she was the daughter of Crassus.\"--\"And what think you,\" said I,\n\"of Crassus, the son of that Licinia, who was adopted by Crassus in his\nwill?\"--\"He is said,\" replied he, \"to have been a man of great genius: and\nthe Scipio you have mentioned, who was my colleague, likewise appears to\nme to have been a good Speaker, and an elegant companion.\"--\"Your opinion,\nmy Brutus,\" said I, \"is very just. For this family, if I may be allowed\nthe expression, seems to have been the offspring of Wisdom. As to their\ntwo grandfathers, Scipio and Crassus, we have taken notice of them\nalready: as we also have of their great grandfathers, Q. Metellus, who had\nfour sons,--P. Scipio, who, when a private citizen, freed the Republic\nfrom the arbitrary influence of T. Gracchus,--and Q. Scaevola, the augur,\nwho was the ablest and most affable Civilian of his time. And lastly, how\nillustrious are the names of their next immediate progenitors, P. Scipio,\nwho was twice Consul, and was called the Darling of the People,--and C.\nLaelius, who was esteemed the wisest of men?\"--\"A generous stock indeed!\"\ncries Brutus, \"into which the wisdom of many has been successively\ningrafted, like a number of scions on the same tree!\"--\"I have likewise a\nsuspicion,\" replied I, \"(if we may compare small things with great) that\nCurio's family, though he himself was left an orphan, was indebted to his\nfather's instruction, and good example, for the habitual purity of their\nlanguage: and so much the more, because, of all those who were held in any\nestimation for their Eloquence, I never knew one who was so totally rude\nand unskilled in every branch of liberal science. He had not read a single\npoet, or studied a single orator; and he knew little or nothing either of\nPublic, Civil, or Common law. We might say almost the same, indeed, of\nseveral others, and some of them very able Orators, who (we know) were but\nlittle acquainted with these useful parts of knowledge; as, for instance,\nof Sulpicius and Antonius. But this deficiency was supplied in them by an\nelaborate knowledge of the art of Speaking; and there was not one of them\nwho was totally unqualified in any of the five [Footnote: Invention,\nDisposition, Elocution, Memory, and Pronunciation.] principal parts of\nwhich it is composed; for whenever this is the case, (and it matters not\nin which of those parts it happens) it intirely incapacitates a man to\nshine as an Orator. Some, however, excelled in one part, and some in\nanother. Thus Antonius could readily invent such arguments as were most in\npoint, and afterwards digest and methodize them to the best advantage; and\nhe could likewise retain the plan he had formed with great exactness: but\nhis chief merit was the goodness of his delivery, in which he was justly\nallowed to excel. In some of these qualifications he was upon an equal\nfooting with Crassus, and in others he was superior: but then the language\nof Crassus was indisputably preferable to _his_. In the same manner, it\ncannot be said that either Sulpicius or Cotta, or any other Speaker of\nrepute, was absolutely deficient in any one of the five parts of Oratory.\nBut we may justly infer from the example of Curio, that nothing will more\nrecommend an Orator, than a brilliant and ready flow of expression; for he\nwas remarkably dull in the invention, and very loose and unconnected in\nthe disposition of his arguments. The two remaining parts are\nPronunciation and Memory; in each of which he was so poorly qualified, as\nto excite the laughter and the ridicule of his hearers. His gesture was\nreally such as C. Julius represented it, in a severe sarcasm, that will\nnever be forgotten; for as he was swaying and reeling his whole body from\nside to side, Julius enquired very merrily, _who it was that was speaking\nfrom a boat_. To the same purpose was the jest of Cn. Sicinius, a very\nvulgar sort of man, but exceedingly humourous, which was the only\nqualification he had to recommend him as an Orator. When this man, as\nTribune of the people, had summoned Curio and Octavius, who were then\nConsuls, into the Forum, and Curio had delivered a tedious harangue, while\nOctavius sat silently by him, wrapt up in flannels, and besmeared with\nointments, to ease the pain of the gout;\"--\"_Octavius,\" said he, \"you are\ninfinitely obliged to your colleague; for if he had not tossed and flung\nhimself about to-day, in the manner he did, you would have certainly have\nbeen devoured by the flies._\"--\"As to his memory, it was so extremely\ntreacherous, that after he had divided his subject into three general\nheads, he would sometimes, in the course of speaking, either add a fourth,\nor omit the third. In a capital trial, in which I had pleaded for Titinia,\nthe daughter of Cotta, when he attempted to reply to me in defence of\nServ. Naevius, he suddenly forgot every thing he had intended to say, and\nattributed it to the pretended witchcraft, and magic artifices of Titinia.\nThese were undoubted proofs of the weakness of his memory. But, what is\nstill more inexcusable, he sometimes forgot, even in his written\ntreatises, what he had mentioned but a little before. Thus, in a book of\nhis, in which he introduces himself as entering into conversation with our\nfriend Pansa, and his son Curio, when he was walking home from the Senate-\nhouse; the Senate is supposed to have been summoned by Caesar in his first\nConsulship; and the whole conversation arises from the son's enquiry what\nthe House had resolved upon. Curio launches out into a long invective\nagainst the conduct of Caesar, and, as is generally the custom in\ndialogues, the parties are engaged in a close dispute on the subject: but\nvery unhappily, though the conversation commences at the breaking up of\nthe Senate which Caesar held when he was first Consul, the author censures\nthose very actions of the same Caesar, which did not happen till the next,\nand several other succeeding years of his government in Gaul.\"--\"Is it\npossible then,\" said Brutus, with an air of surprize, \"that any man, (and\nespecially in a written performance) could be so forgetful as not to\ndiscover, upon a subsequent perusal of his own work, what an egregious\nblunder he had committed?\"--\"Very true,\" said I; \"for if he wrote with a\ndesign to discredit the measures which he represents in such an odious\nlight, nothing could be more stupid than not to commence his dialogue at a\nperiod which was subsequent to those measures. But he so entirely forgets\nhimself, as to tell us, that he did not choose to attend a Senate which\nwas held in one of Caesar's future consulships, in the very same dialogue\nin which he introduces himself as returning home from a Senate which was\nheld in his first consulship. It cannot, therefore, be wondered at, that\nhe who was so remarkably defective in a faculty which is the steward of\nour other intellectual powers, as to forget, even in a written treatise, a\nmaterial circumstance which he had mentioned but a little before, should\nfind his memory fail him, as it generally did, in a sudden and\nunpremeditated harangue. It accordingly happened, though he had many\nconnections, and was fond of speaking in public, that few causes were\nintrusted to his management. But, among his cotemporaries, he was esteemed\nnext in merit to the first Orators of the age; and that merely, as I said\nbefore, for his good choice of words, and his uncommon readiness, and\ngreat fluency of expression. His Orations, therefore, may deserve a\ncursory perusal. It is true, indeed, they are much too languid and\nspiritless; but they may yet be of service to enlarge and improve an\naccomplishment, of which he certainly had a moderate share; and which has\nso much force and efficacy, that it gave Curio the appearance and\nreputation of an Orator, without the assistance of any other good quality.\n\n\"But to return to our subject,--C. Carbo, of the same age, was likewise\nreckoned an Orator of the second class: he was the son, indeed, of the\ntruly eloquent man before-mentioned, but was far from being an acute\nSpeaker himself: he was, however, esteemed an Orator. His language was\ntolerably nervous, he spoke with ease,--and there was an air of authority\nin his address that was perfectly natural. But Q. Varius was a man of\nquicker invention, and, at the same time, had an equal freedom of\nexpression: besides which, he had a bold and spirited delivery, and a vein\nof elocution which was neither poor, nor coarse and vulgar;--in short, you\nneed not hesitate to pronounce him an _Orator_. Cn. Pomponius was a\nvehement, a rousing, and a fierce and eager Speaker, and more inclined to\nact the part of a prosecutor, than of an advocate. But far inferior to\nthese was L. Fufius; though his application was, in some measure, rewarded\nby the success of his prosecution against M. Aquilius. For as to M.\nDrusus, your great uncle, who spoke like an Orator only upon matters of\ngovernment;--L. Lucullus, who was indeed an artful Speaker, and your\nfather, my Brutus, who was well acquainted with the Common and Civil Law;\n--M. Lucullus, and M. Octavius, the son of Cnaeus, who was a man of so\nmuch authority and address, as to procure the repeal of Sempronius's\ncorn-act, by the suffrages of a full assembly of the people;--Cn.\nOctavius, the son of Marcus,--and M. Cato, the father, and Q. Catulus,\nthe son;--we must excuse these (if I may so express myself) from the\nfatigues and dangers of the field,--that is, from the management of\njudicial causes, and place them in garison over the general interests\nof the Republic, a duty to which they seem to have been sufficiently\nadequate. I should have assigned the same post to Q. Caepio, if he\nhad not been so violently attached to the Equestrian Order, as to set\nhimself at variance with the Senate. I have also remarked, that Cn.\nCarbo, M. Marius, and several others of the same stamp, who would\nnot have merited the attention of an audience that had any taste for\nelegance, were extremely well suited to address a tumultuous crowd.\nIn the same class, (if I may be allowed to interrupt the series of\nmy narrative) L. Quintius lately made his appearance: though Palicanus,\nit must be owned, was still better adapted to please the ears of the\npopulace. But, as I have mentioned this inferior kind of Speakers,\nI must be so just to L. Apuleius Saturninus, as to observe that, of all\nthe factious declaimers since the time of the Gracchi, he was generally\nesteemed the ablest: and yet he caught the attention of the Public, more\nby his appearance, his gesture, and his dress, than by any real fluency of\nexpression, or even a tolerable share of good sense. But C. Servilius\nGlaucia, though the most abandoned wretch that ever existed, was very keen\nand artful, and excessively humourous; and notwithstanding the meanness of\nhis birth, and the depravity of his life, he would have been advanced to\nthe dignity of a Consul in his Praetorship, if it had been judged lawful\nto admit his suit: for the populace were entirely at his devotion, and he\nhad secured the interest of the Knights, by an act he had procured in\ntheir favour. He was slain in the open Forum, while he was Praetor, on the\nsame day as the tribune Saturninus, in the Consulship of Marius and\nFlaccus; and bore a near resemblance to Hyperbolus, the Athenian, whose\nprofligacy was so severely stigmatized in the old Attic Comedies. These\nwere succeeded by Sext. Titius, who was indeed a voluble Speaker, and\npossessed a ready comprehension, but he was so loose and effeminate in his\ngesture, as to furnish room for the invention of a dance, which was called\nthe _Titian jigg_: so careful should we be to avoid every oddity in our\nmanner of speaking, which may afterwards be exposed to ridicule by a\nludicrous imitation.\n\n\"But we have rambled back insensibly to a period which has been already\nexamined: let us, therefore, return to that which we were reviewing a\nlittle before. Cotemporary with Sulpicius was P. Antistius,--a plausible\ndeclaimer, who, after being silent for several years, and exposed, (as he\noften was) not only to the contempt, but the derision of his hearers,\nfirst spoke with applause in his tribuneship, in a real and very\ninteresting protest against the illegal application of C. Julius for the\nconsulship; and that so much the more, because though Sulpicius himself,\nwho then happened to be his colleague, spoke on the same side of the\ndebate, Antistius argued more copiously, and to better purpose. This\nraised his reputation so high, that many, and (soon afterwards) every\ncause of importance, was eagerly recommended to his patronage. To speak\nthe truth, he had a quick conception, a methodical judgment, and a\nretentive memory; and though his language was not much embellished, it was\nvery far from being low. In short, his style was easy, and flowing, and\nhis appearance rather genteel than otherwise: but his action was a little\ndefective, partly through the disagreeable tone of his voice, and partly\nby a few ridiculous gestures, of which he could not entirely break\nhimself. He flourished in the time between the flight and the return of\nSylla, when the Republic was deprived of a regular administration of\njustice, and of its former dignity and splendor. But the very favourable\nreception he met with was, in some measure, owing to the great scarcity of\ngood Orators which then prevailed in the Forum. For Sulpicius was dead;\nCotta and Curio were abroad; and no pleaders of any eminence were left but\nCarbo and Pomponius, from each of whom he easily carried off the palm. His\nnearest successor in the following age was L. Sisenna, who was a man of\nlearning, had a taste for the liberal Sciences, spoke the Roman language\nwith accuracy, was well acquainted with the laws and constitution of his\ncountry, and had a tolerable share of wit; but he was not a Speaker of any\ngreat application, or extensive practice; and as he happened to live in\nthe intermediate time between the appearance of Sulpicius and Hortensius,\nhe was unable to equal the former, and forced to yield to the superior\ntalents of the latter. We may easily form a judgment of his abilities from\nthe historical Works he has left behind him; which, though evidently\npreferable to any thing of the kind which had appeared before, may serve\nas a proof that he was far below the standard of perfection, and that this\nspecies of composition had not then been improved to any great degree of\nexcellence among the Romans. But the genius of Q. Hortensius, even in his\nearly youth, like one of Phidias's statues, was no sooner beheld than it\nwas universally admired! He spoke his first Oration in the Forum in the\nconsulship of L. Crassus and Q. Scaevola, to whom it was personally\nadressed; and though he was then only nineteen years old, he descended\nfrom the Rostra with the hearty approbation not only of the audience in\ngeneral, but of the two Consuls themselves, who were the most intelligent\njudges in the whole city. He died in the consulship of L. Paulus and C.\nMarcellus; from which it appears that he was four-and-forty years a\nPleader. We shall review his character more at large in the sequel: but in\nthis part of my history, I chose to include him in the number of Orators\nwho were rather of an earlier date. This indeed must necessarily happen to\nall whose lives are of any considerable length: for they are equally\nliable to a comparison with their Elders and their Juniors; as in the case\nof the poet Attius, who says that both he and Pacuvius applied themselves\nto the cultivation of the drama under the fame Aediles; though, at the\ntime, the one was eighty, and the other only thirty years old. Thus\nHortensius may be paralleled not only with those who were properly his\ncontemporaries, but with me, and you, my Brutus, and with others of a\nprior date. For he began to speak in public while Crassus was living but\nhis fame increased when he appeared as a joint advocate with Antonius and\nPhilip (at that time in the decline of life) in defence of Cn. Pompeius,--\na cause in which (though a mere youth) he distinguished himself above the\nrest. He may therefore be included in the lift of those whom I have placed\nin the time of Sulpicius; but among his proper coevals, such as M. Piso,\nM. Crassus, Cn. Lentulus, and P. Lentulus Sura, he excelled beyond the\nreach of competition; and after these he happened upon me, in the early\npart of my life (for I was eight years younger than himself) and spent a\nnumber of years with me in pursuit of the same forensic glory: and at\nlast, (a little before his death) he once pleaded with _you_, in defence\nof Appius Claudius, as I have frequently done for others. Thus you see, my\nBrutus, I am come insensibly to _yourself_, though there was undoubtedly a\ngreat variety of Orators between my first appearance in the Forum, and\nyours. But as I determined, when we began the conversation, to make no\nmention of those among them who are still living, to prevent your\nenquiring too minutely what is my opinion concerning each; I shall confine\nmyself to such as are now no more.\"--\"That is not the true reason,\" said\nBrutus, \"why you choose to be silent about the living.\"--\"What then do you\nsuppose it to be,\" said I?--\"You are only fearful,\" replied he, \"that your\nremarks should afterwards be mentioned by us in other company, and that,\nby this means, you should expose yourself to the resentment of those, whom\nyou may not think it worth your while to notice.\"--\"Indeed,\" answered I,\n\"I have not the least doubt of your secresy.\"--\"Neither have you any\nreason,\" said he; \"but after all, I suppose, you had rather be silent\n_yourself_, than rely upon our taciturnity.\"--\"To confess the truth,\"\nreplied I, \"when I first entered upon the subject, I never imagined that I\nshould have extended it to the age now before us; whereas I have been\ndrawn by a continued series of history among the moderns of latest date.\"\n--\"Introduce, then,\" said he, \"those intermediate Orators you may think\nworthy of our notice: and afterwards let us return to yourself, and\nHortensius.\"--\"To Hortensius,\" replied I, \"with all my heart; but as to my\n_own_ character, I shall leave it to other people to examine, if they\nchoose to take the trouble.\"--\"I can by no means agree to _that_,\" said\nhe: \"for though every part of the account you have favoured us with, has\nentertained me very agreeably, it now begins to seem tedious, because I am\nimpatient to hear something of _yourself_: I do not mean the wonderful\nqualities, but the _progressive steps_, and advances of your Eloquence;\nfor the former are sufficiently known already both to me, and the whole\nworld.\"--\"As you do not require me,\" said I, \"to sound the praises of my\nown genius, but only to describe my labour and application to improve it,\nyour request shall be complied with. But to preserve the order of my\nnarrative, I shall first introduce such other Speakers as I think ought to\nbe previously noticed: and I shall begin with M. Crassus, who was\ncontemporary with Hortensius. With a tolerable share of learning, and a\nvery moderate capacity, his application, assiduity, and interest, procured\nhim a place among the ablest Pleaders of the time for several years. His\nlanguage was pure, his expression neither low nor ungenteel, and his ideas\nwell digested: but he had nothing in him that was florid, and ornamental;\nand the real ardor of his mind was not supported by any vigorous exertion\nof his voice, so that he pronounced almost every thing in the same uniform\ntone. His equal, and professed antagonist C. Fimbria was not able to\nmaintain his character so long; and though he always spoke with a strong\nand elevated voice, and poured forth a rapid torrent of well-chosen\nexpressions, he was so immoderately vehement that you might justly be\nsurprised that the people should have been so absent and inattentive as to\nadmit a _madman_, like him, into the lift of Orators. As to Cn. Lentulus,\nhis action acquired him a reputation for his Eloquence very far beyond his\nreal abilities: for though he was not a man of any great penetration\n(notwithstanding he carried the appearance of it in his countenance) nor\npossessed any real fluency of expression (though he was equally specious\nin this respect as in the former)--yet by his sudden breaks, and\nexclamations, he affected such an ironical air of surprize, with a sweet\nand sonorous turn of voice, and his whole action was so warm and lively,\nthat his defects were scarcely noticed. For as Curio acquired the\nreputation of an Orator with no other quality than a tolerable freedom of\nElocution; so Cn. Lentulus concealed the mediocrity of his other\naccomplishments by his _action_, which was really excellent. Much the same\nmight be said of P. Lentulus, whose poverty of invention and expression\nwas secured from notice by the mere dignity of his presence, his correct\nand graceful gesture, and the strength and sweetness of his voice: and his\nmerit depended so entirely upon his action, that he was more deficient in\nevery other quality than his namesake. But M. Piso derived all his talents\nfrom his erudition; for he was much better versed in the Grecian\nliterature than any of his predecessors. He had, however, a natural\nkeenness of discernment, which he greatly improved by art, and exerted\nwith great address and dexterity, though in very indifferent language: but\nhe was frequently warm and choleric, sometimes cold and insipid, and now\nand then rather smart and humourous. He did not long support the fatigue,\nand emulous contention of the Forum; partly, on account of the weakness of\nhis constitution; and partly, because he could not submit to the follies\nand impertinencies of the common people (which we Orators are forced to\nswallow) either, as it was generally supposed, from a peculiar moroseness\nof temper, or from a liberal and ingenuous pride of heart. After\nacquiring, therefore, in his youth, a tolerable degree of reputation, his\ncharacter began to sink: but in the trial of the Vestals, he again\nrecovered it with some additional lustre, and being thus recalled to the\ntheatre of Eloquence, he kept his rank, as long as he was able to support\nthe fatigue of it; after which his credit declined, in proportion as he\nremitted his application.--P. Murena had a moderate genius, but was\npassionately fond of the study of Antiquity; he applied himself with equal\ndiligence to the Belles Lettres, in which he was tolerably versed; in\nshort, he was a man of great industry, and took the utmost pains to\ndistinguish himself.--C. Censorinus had a good stock of Grecian\nliterature, explained whatever he advanced with great neatness and\nperspicuity, and had a graceful action, but was too cold and unanimated\nfor the Forum.--L. Turius with a very indifferent genius, but the most\nindefatigable application, spoke in public very often, in the best manner\nhe was able; and, accordingly, he only wanted the votes of a few Centuries\nto promote him to the Consulship.--C. Macer was never a man of much\ninterest or authority, but was one of the most active Pleaders of his\ntime; and if his life, his manners, and his very looks, had not ruined the\ncredit of his genius, he would have ranked higher in the lift of Orators.\nHe was neither copious, nor dry and barren; neither eat and embellished,\nnor wholly inelegant; and his voice, his gesture, and every part of his\naction, was without any grace: but in inventing and digesting his ideas,\nhe had a wonderful accuracy, such as no man I ever saw either possessed\nor exerted in a more eminent degree; and yet, some how, he displayed it\nrather with the air of a Quibbler, than of an Orator. Though he had\nacquired some reputation in public causes, he appeared to most advantage\nand was most courted and employed in private ones.--C. Piso, who comes\nnext in order, had scarcely any exertion, but he was a Speaker of a very\nconvertible style; and though, in fact, he was far from being slow of\ninvention, he had more penetration in his look and appearance than he\nreally possessed.--His cotemporary M. Glabrio, though carefully instructed\nby his grandfather Scaevola, was prevented from distinguishing himself by\nhis natural indolence and want of attention.--L. Torquatus, on the\ncontrary, had an elegant turn of expression, and a clear comprehension,\nand was perfectly genteel and well-bred in his whole manner.--But Cn.\nPompeius, my coeval, a man who was born to excel in every thing, would\nhave acquired a more distinguished reputation for his Eloquence, if he had\nnot been diverted from the pursuit of it by the more dazzling charms of\nmilitary fame. His language was naturally bold and elevated, and he was\nalways master of his subject; and as to his powers of enunciation, his\nvoice was sonorous and manly, and his gesture noble, and full of dignity.\n--D. Silanus, another of my cotemporaries, and your father-in-law, was not\na man of much application, but he had a very competent share of\ndiscernment, and elocution.--Q. Pompeius, the son of Aulus, who had the\ntitle of _Bithynicus_, and was about two years older than myself, was, to\nmy own knowledge, remarkably fond of the study of Eloquence, had an\nuncommon stock of learning, and was a man of indefatigable industry and\nperseverance: for he was connected with me and M. Piso, not only as an\nintimate acquaintance, but as an associate in our studies, and private\nexercises. His elocution was but poorly recommended by his action: for\nthough the former was sufficiently copious and diffusive, there was\nnothing graceful in the latter.--His contemporary, P. Autronius, had a\nvery clear, and strong voice; but he was distinguished by no other\naccomplishment.--L. Octavius Reatinus died in his youth, while he was in\nfull practice: but he ascended the rostra with more assurance, than\nability.--C. Staienus, who changed his name into Aelius by a kind of self-\nadoption, was a warm, an abusive, and indeed a furious speaker; which was\nso agreeable to the taste of many, that he would have risen to some rank\nin the State, if it had not been for a crime of which he was clearly\nconvicted, and for which he afterwards suffered.--At the same time were\nthe two brothers C. and L. Caepasius, who, though men of an obscure\nfamily, and little previous consequence, were yet, by mere dint of\napplication, suddenly promoted to the Quaestorship, with no other\nrecommendation than a provincial and unpolished kind of Oratory.--That I\nmay not seem to have put a wilful slight on any of the vociferous tribe, I\nmust also notice C. Cosconius Calidianus, who, without any discernment,\namused the people with a rapidity of language (if such it might be called)\nwhich he attended with a perpetual hurry of action, and a most violent\nexertion of his voice.--Of much the same cast was Q. Arrius, who may be\nconsidered as a second-hand M. Crassus. He is a striking proof of what\nconsequence it is in such a city as ours to devote one's-self to the\noccasions of _the many_, and to be as active as possible in promoting\ntheir safety, or their honour. For by these means, though of the lowest\nparentage, having raised himself to offices of rank, and to considerable\nwealth and influence, he likewise acquired the reputation of a tolerable\npatron, without either learning or abilities. But as inexperienced\nchampions, who, from a passionate desire to distinguish themselves in the\nCircus, can bear the blows of their opponents without shrinking, are often\noverpowered by the heat of the sun, when it is increased by the reflection\nof the sand; so _he_, who had hitherto supported even the sharpest\nencounters with good success, could not stand the severity of that year of\njudicial contest, which blazed upon him like a summer's sun.\"\n\n\"Upon my word,\" cried Atticus, \"you are now treating us with the very\n_dregs_ of Oratory, and you have entertained us in this manner for some\ntime: but I did not offer to interrupt you, because I never dreamed you\nwould have descended so low as to mention the _Staieni_ and _Autronii_!\"--\n\"As I have been speaking of the dead, you will not imagine, I suppose,\"\nsaid I, \"that I have done it to court their favour: but in pursuing the\norder of history, I was necessarily led by degrees to a period of time\nwhich falls within the compass of our own knowledge. But I wish it to be\nnoticed, that after recounting all who ever ventured to speak in public,\nwe find but few, (very few indeed!) whose names are worth recording; and\nnot many who had even the repute of being Orators. Let us, however, return\nto our subject. T. Torquatus, then, the son of Titus, was a man of\nlearning, (which he first acquired in the school of Molo in Rhodes,) and\nof a free and easy elocution which he received from Nature. If he had\nlived to a proper age, he would have been chosen Consul, without any\ncanvassing; but he had more ability for speaking than inclination; _so_\nthat, in fact, he did not do justice to the art he professed; and yet he\nwas never wanting to his duty, either in the private causes of his\nfriends and dependents, or in his senatorial capacity.--My townsman too,\nP. Pontidius, pleaded a number of private causes. He had a rapidity of\nexpression, and a tolerable quickness of comprehension: but he was very\nwarm, and indeed rather too choleric and irascible; so that he often\nwrangled not only with his antagonist, but (what appears very strange)\nwith the judge himself, whom it was rather his business to sooth and\ngratify.--M. Messala, who was something younger than myself, was far from\nbeing a poor and an abject Pleader, and yet he was not a very embellished\none. He was judicious, penetrating, and wary, very exact in digesting and\nmethodizing his subject, and a man of uncommon diligence and application,\nand of very extensive practice.--As to the two Metelli (Celer and Nepos)\nthese also had a moderate share of employment at the bar; but being\ndestitute neither of learning nor abilities, they chiefly applied\nthemselves (and with some success) to debates of a more popular kind.--But\nCaius Lentulus Marcellinus, who was never reckoned a bad Speaker, was\nesteemed a very eloquent one in his Consulship. He wanted neither\nsentiment, nor expression; his voice was sweet and sonorous; and he had a\nsufficient stock of humour.--C. Memmius, the son of Lucius, was a perfect\nadept in the _belles lettres_ of the Greeks; for he had an insuperable\ndisgust to the literature of the Romans. He was a neat and polished\nSpeaker, and had a sweet and harmonious turn of expression; but as he was\nequally averse to every laborious effort either of the mind or the tongue,\nhis Eloquence declined in proportion as he lessened his application.\"--\n\"But I heartily wish,\" said Brutus, \"that you would give us your opinion\nof those Orators who are still living; or, if you are determined to say\nnothing of the rest, there are two at least, (that is Caesar and\nMarcellus, whom I have often heard you speak of with the highest\napprobation) whose characters would give me as much entertainment as any\nof those you have already specified.\"--\"But why,\" answered I, \"would you\nexpect that I would give you my opinion of men who are as well known to\nyourself as to me?\"--\"Marcellus, indeed,\" replied he, \"I am very well\nacquainted with; but as to Caesar, I know little of _him_. For I have\n_heard_ the former very often: but, by the time I was able to judge for\nmyself, the latter had set out for his province.\"--\"Mighty well,\" said I;\n\"and what think you of him you have heard so often?\"--\"What else can I\nthink,\" replied he, \"but that you will soon have an Orator, who will very\nnearly resemble yourself?\"--\"If that is the case,\" answered I, \"pray think\nof him as favourably as you can.\" \"I do,\" said he; \"for he pleases me very\nhighly; and not without reason. He is absolutely master of his trade, and,\nneglecting every other profession, has applied himself solely to _this_;\nand, for that purpose, has persevered in the rigorous task of composing a\ndaily Essay in writing. His words are well chosen; his language is full\nand copious; and every thing he says receives an additional ornament from\nthe graceful tone of his voice, and the dignity of his action. In short,\nhe is so compleat an Orator, that there is no quality I know of, in which\nI can think him deficient. But he is still more to be admired, for being\nable, in these unhappy times, (which are marked with a distress that, by\nsome cruel fatality, has overwhelmed us all) to console himself, as\nopportunity offers, with the consciousness of his own integrity, and by\nthe frequent renewal of his literary pursuits. I saw him lately at\nMitylene; and then (as I have already hinted) I saw him a thorough man.\nFor though I had before discovered in him a strong resemblance of\nyourself, the likeness was much improved, after he was enriched by the\ninstructions of your learned, and very intimate friend Cratippus.\"--\n\"Though I acknowledge,\" said I, \"that I have listened with pleasure to\nyour Elogies on a very worthy man, for whom I have the warmest esteem,\nthey have led me insensibly to the recollection of our common miseries,\nwhich our present conversation was intended to suspend. But I would\nwillingly hear what is Atticus's opinion of Caesar.\"--\"Upon my word,\"\nreplied Atticus, \"you are wonderfully consistent with your plan, to say\nnothing _yourself_ of the living: and indeed, if you was to deal with\n_them_, as you already have with the _dead_, and say something of every\npaltry fellow that occurs to your memory, you would plague us with\n_Autronii_ and _Steiani_ without end. But though you might possibly have\nit in view not to incumber yourself with such a numerous crowd of\ninsignificant wretches; or perhaps, to avoid giving any one room to\ncomplain that he was either unnoticed, or not extolled according to his\nimaginary merit; yet, certainly, you might have said something of Caesar;\nespecially, as your opinion of _his_ abilities is well known to every\nbody, and his concerning _your's_ is very far from being a secret. But,\nhowever,\" said he, (addressing himself to Brutus) \"I really think of\nCaesar, and every body else says the same of this accurate connoisseur in\nthe Art of Speaking, that he has the purest and the most elegant command\nof the Roman language of all the Orators that have yet appeared: and that\nnot merely by domestic habit, as we have lately heard it observed of the\nfamilies of the Laelii and the Mucii, (though even here, I believe, this\nmight partly have been the case) but he chiefly acquired and brought it to\nits present perfection, by a studious application to the most intricate\nand refined branches of literature, and by a careful and constant\nattention to the purity of his style. But that _he_, who, involved as he\nwas in a perpetual hurry of business, could dedicate to _you_, my Cicero,\na laboured Treatise on the Art of Speaking correctly; that _he_, who, in\nthe first book of it, laid it down as an axiom, that an accurate choice of\nwords is the foundation of Eloquence; and who has bestowed,\" said he,\n(addressing himself again to Brutus) \"the highest encomiums on this friend\nof ours, who yet chooses to leave Caesar's character to _me_;--that _he_\nshould be a perfect master of the language of polite conservation, is a\ncircumstance which is almost too obvious to be mentioned.\" \"I said, _the\nhighest encomiums_,\" pursued Atticus, \"because he says in so many words,\nwhen he addresses himself to Cicero--_if others have bestowed all their\ntime and attention to acquire a habit of expressing themselves with ease\nand correctness, how much is the name and dignity of the Roman people\nindebted to you, who are the highest pattern, and indeed the first\ninventor of that rich fertility of language which distinguishes your\nperformances?_\"--Indeed,\" said Brutus, \"I think he has extolled your merit\nin a very friendly, and a very magnificent style: for you are not only the\n_highest pattern_, and even the _first inventor_ of all our _fertility_ of\nlanguage, which alone is praise enough to content any reasonable man, but\nyou have added fresh honours to the name and dignity of the Roman people;\nfor the very excellence in which we had hitherto been conquered by the\nvanquished Greeks, has now been either wrested from their hands, or\nequally shared, at least, between us and them. So that I prefer this\nhonourable testimony of Caesar, I will not say to the public thanksgiving,\nwhich was decreed for your _own_ military services, but to the triumphs of\nmany heroes.\"--\"Very true,\" replied I, \"provided this honourable testimony\nwas really the voice of Caesar's judgment, and not of his friendship: for\n_he_ certainly has added more to the dignity of the Roman people, whoever\nhe may be (if indeed any such man has yet existed) who has not only\nexemplified and enlarged, but first produced this rich fertility of\nexpression, than the doughty warrior who has stormed a few paltry castles\nof the Ligurians, which have furnished us, you know, with many repeated\ntriumphs. In reality, if we can submit to hear the truth, it may be\nasserted (to say nothing of those god-like plans, which, supported by the\nwisdom of our Generals, has frequently saved the sinking State both abroad\nand at home) that an Orator is justly entitled to the preference to any\nCommander in a petty war. But the General, you will say, is the more\nserviceable man to the public. Nobody denies it: and yet (for I am not\nafraid of provoking your censure, in a conversation which leaves each of\nus at liberty to say what he thinks) I had rather be the author of the\nsingle Oration of Crassus, in defence of Curius, than be honoured with two\nLigurian triumphs. You will, perhaps, reply, that the storming a castle of\nthe Ligurians was a thing of more consequence to the State, than that the\nclaim of Curius should be ably supported. This I own to be true. But it\nwas also of more consequence to the Athenians, that their houses should be\nsecurely roofed, than to have their city graced with a most beautiful\nstatue of Minerva: and yet, notwithstanding this, I would much rather have\nbeen a Phidias, than the most skilful joiner in Athens. In the present\ncase, therefore, we are not to consider a man's usefulness, but the\nstrength of his abilities; especially as the number of painters and\nstatuaries, who have excelled in their profession, is very small; whereas,\nthere can never be any want of joiners and mechanic labourers. But\nproceed, my Atticus, with Caesar; and oblige us with the remainder of his\ncharacter.\"--\"We see then,\" said he, \"from what has just been mentioned,\nthat a pure and correct style is the groundwork, and the very basis and\nfoundation, upon which an Orator must build his other accomplishments:\nthough, it is true, that those who had hitherto possessed it, derived it\nmore from early habit, than from any principles of art. It is needless to\nrefer you to the instances of Laelius and Scipio; for a purity of\nlanguage, as well as of manners, was the characteristic of the age they\nlived in. It could not, indeed, be applied to every one; for their two\ncotemporaries, Caecilius and Pacuvius, spoke very incorrectly: but yet\npeople in general, who had not resided out of the city, nor been corrupted\nby any domestic barbarisms, spoke the Roman language with purity. Time,\nhowever, as well at Rome as in Greece, soon altered matters for the worse:\nfor this city, (as had formerly been the case at Athens) was resorted to\nby a crowd of adventurers from different parts, who spoke very corruptly;\nwhich shews the necessity of reforming our language, and reducing it to a\ncertain standard, which shall not be liable to vary like the capricious\nlaws of custom. Though we were then very young, we can easily remember T.\nFlaminius, who was joint-consul with Q. Metellus: he was supposed to speak\nhis native language with correctness, but was a man of no Literature. As\nto Catulus, he was far indeed from being destitute of learning, as you\nhave already observed: but his reputed purity of diction was chiefly owing\nto the sweetness of his voice, and the delicacy of his accent. Cotta, who,\nby his broad pronunciation, threw off all resemblance of the elegant tone\nof the Greeks, and affected a harsh and rustic utterance, quite opposite\nto that of Catulus, acquired the same reputation of correctness by\npursuing a wild and unfrequented path. But Sisenna, who had the ambition\nto think of reforming our phraseology, could not be lashed out of his\nwhimsical and new-fangled turns of expression, by all the raillery of C.\nRufius.\"--\"What do you refer to?\" said Brutus; \"and who was the Caius\nRufius you are speaking of?\"--\"He was a noted prosecutor,\" replied he,\n\"some years ago. When this man had supported an indictment against one\nChristilius, Sisenna, who was counsel for the defendant, told him, that\nseveral parts of his accusation were absolutely _spitatical_. [Footnote:\nIn the original _sputatilica_, worthy to be spit upon. It appears, from\nthe connection, to have been a very unclassical word, whimsically derived\nby the author of it from _sputa_, spittle.] _My Lords_, cried Rufius to\nthe judges, _I shall be cruelly over-reached, unless you give me your\nassistance. His charge overpowers my comprehension; and I am afraid he has\nsome unfair design upon me. What, in the name of Heaven, can be intend by_\nSPITATICAL? _I know the meaning of_ SPIT, _or_ SPITTLE; _but this horrid_\nATICAL, _at the end of it, absolutely puzzles me._ The whole Bench laughed\nvery heartily at the singular oddity of the expression: my old friend,\nhowever, was still of opinion, that to speak correctly, was to speak\ndifferently from other people. But Caesar, who was guided by the\nprinciples of art, has corrected the imperfections of a vicious custom, by\nadopting the rules and improvements of a good one, as he found them\noccasionally displayed in the course of polite conversation. Accordingly,\nto the purest elegance of expression, (which is equally necessary to every\nwell-bred Citizen, as to an Orator) he has added all the various ornaments\nof Elocution; so that he seems to exhibit the finest painting in the most\nadvantageous point of view. As he has such extraordinary merit even in the\ncommon run of his language, I must confess that there is no person I know\nof, to whom he should yield the preference. Besides, his manner of\nspeaking, both as to his voice and gesture, is splendid and noble, without\nthe least appearance of artifice or affectation: and there is a dignity in\nhis very presence, which bespeaks a great and elevated mind.\"--\"Indeed,\"\nsaid Brutus, \"his Orations please me highly; for I have had the\nsatisfaction to read several of them. He has likewise wrote some\ncommentaries, or short memoirs, of his own transactions;\"--\"and such,\"\nsaid I, \"as merit the highest approbation: for they are plain, correct,\nand graceful, and divested of all the ornaments of language, so as to\nappear (if I may be allowed the expression) in a kind of undress. But\nwhile he pretended only to furnish the loose materials, for such as might\nbe inclined to compose a regular history, he may, perhaps, have gratified\nthe vanity of a few literary _Frisseurs_: but he has certainly prevented\nall sensible men from attempting any improvement on his plan. For in\nhistory, nothing is more pleasing than a correct and elegant brevity of\nexpression. With your leave, however, it is high time to return to those\nOrators who have quitted the stage of life. C. Sicinius then, who was a\ngrandson of the Censor Q. Pompey, by one of his daughters, died after his\nadvancement to the Quaestorship. He was a Speaker of some merit and\nreputation, which he derived from the system of Hermagoras; who, though he\nfurnished but little assistance for acquiring an ornamental style, gave\nmany useful precepts to expedite and improve the invention of an Orator.\nFor in this System we have a collection of fixed and determinate rules for\npublic speaking; which are delivered indeed without any shew or parade,\n(and, I might have added, in a trivial and homely form) but yet are so\nplain and methodical, that it is almost impossible to mistake the road. By\nkeeping close to these, and always digesting his subject before he\nventured to speak upon it, (to which we may add, that he had a tolerable\nfluency of expression) he so far succeeded, without any other assistance,\nas to be ranked among the pleaders of the day.--As to C. Visellius Varro,\nwho was my cousin, and a cotemporary of Sicinius, he was a man of great\nlearning. He died while he was a member of the Court of Inquests, into\nwhich he had been admitted after the expiration of his Aedileship. The\npublic, I confess, had not the same opinion of his abilities that I have;\nfor he never passed as a man of Sterling Eloquence among the people. His\nstyle was excessively quick and rapid, and consequently obscure; for, in\nfact, it was embarrassed and blinded by the celerity of its course: and\nyet, after all, you will scarcely find a man who had a better choice of\nwords, or a richer vein of sentiment. He had besides a complete fund of\npolite literature, and a thorough knowledge of the principles of\njurisprudence, which he learned from his father Aculeo. To proceed in our\naccount of the dead, the next that presents himself is L. Torquatus, whom\nyou will not so readily pronounce a connoisseur in the Art of Speaking\n(though he was by no means destitute of elocution) as, what is called by\nthe Greeks, _a political Adept_. He had a plentiful stock of learning, not\nindeed of the common sort, but of a more abstruse and curious nature: he\nhad likewise an admirable memory, and a very sensible and elegant turn of\nexpression; all which qualities derived an additional grace from the\ndignity of his deportment, and the integrity of his manners. I was also\nhighly pleased with the style of his cotemporary Triarius, which expressed\nto perfection, the character of a worthy old gentleman, who had been\nthoroughly polished by the refinements of Literature.--What a venerable\nseverity was there in his look! What forcible solemnity in his language!\nand how thoughtful and deliberate every word he spoke!\"--At the mention of\nTorquatus and Triarius, for each of whom he had the most affectionate\nveneration,--\"It fills my heart with anguish,\" said Brutus, \"(to omit a\nthousand other circumstances) when I reflect, as I cannot help doing, on\nyour mentioning the names of these worthy men, that your long-respected\nauthority was insufficient to procure an accommodation of our differences.\nThe Republic would not otherwise have been deprived of these, and many\nother excellent Citizens.\"--\"Not a word more,\" said I, on this melancholy\nsubject, which can only aggravate our sorrow: for as the remembrance of\nwhat is already past is painful enough, the prospect of what is yet to\ncome is still more cutting. Let us, therefore, drop our unavailing\ncomplaints, and (agreeably to our plan) confine our attention to the\nforensic merits of our deceased friends. Among those, then, who lost their\nlives in this unhappy war, was M. Bibulus, who, though not a professed\norator, was a very accurate writer, and a solid and experienced advocate:\nand Appius Claudius, your father-in-law, and my colleague and intimate\nacquaintance, who was not only a hard student, and a man of learning, but\na practised Orator, a skilful Augurist and Civilian, and a thorough Adept\nin the Roman History.--As to L. Domitius, he was totally unacquainted\nwith any rules of art; but he spoke his native language with purity, and\nhad a great freedom of address. We had likewise the two Lentuli, men of\nconsular dignity; one of whom, (I mean Publius) the avenger of my wrongs,\nand the author of my restoration, derived all his powers and\naccomplishments from the assistance of Art, and not from the bounty of\nNature: but he had such a great and noble disposition, that he claimed all\nthe honours of the most illustrious Citizens, and supported them with the\nutmost dignity of character.--The other (L. Lentulus) was an animated\nSpeaker, for it would be saying too much, perhaps, to call him an Orator--\nbut, unhappily, he had an utter aversion to the trouble of thinking. His\nvoice was sonorous; and his language, though not absolutely harsh and\nforbidding, was warm and rigorous, and carried in it a kind of terror. In\na judicial trial, you would probably have wished for a more agreeable and\na keener advocate: but in a debate on matters of government, you would\nhave thought his abilities sufficient.--Even Titus Postumius had such\npowers of utterance, as were not to be despised: but in political matters,\nhe spoke with the same unbridled ardour he fought with: in short, he was\nmuch too warm; though it must be owned he possessed an extensive knowledge\nof the laws and constitution of his country.\"--\"Upon my word,\" cried\nAtticus, \"if the persons you have mentioned were still living, I should be\napt to imagine, that you was endeavouring to solicit their favour. For you\nintroduce every body who had the courage to stand up and speak his mind:\nso that I almost begin to wonder how M. Servilius has escaped your\nnotice.\"--\"I am, indeed, very sensible,\" replied I, \"that there have been\nmany who never spoke in public, that were much better qualified for the\ntalk, than those Orators I have taken the pains to enumerate: [Footnote:\nThis was probably intended as an indirect Compliment to Atticus.] but I\nhave, at least, answered one purpose by it, which is to shew you, that in\nthis populous City, we have not had very many who had the resolution to\nspeak at all; and that even among these, there have been few who were\nentitled to our applause. I cannot, therefore, neglect to take some notice\nof those worthy knights, and my intimate friends, very lately deceased, P.\nComminius Spoletinus, against whom I pleaded in defence of C. Cornelius,\nand who was a methodical, a spirited, and a ready Speaker; and T. Accius,\nof Pisaurum, to whom I replied in behalf of A. Cluentius, and who was an\naccurate, and a tolerably copious Advocate: he was also well instructed in\nthe precepts of Hermagoras, which, though of little service to embellish\nand enrich our Elocution, furnish a variety of arguments, which, like the\nweapons of the light infantry, may be readily managed, and are adapted to\nevery subject of debate. I must add, that I never knew a man of greater\nindustry and application. As to C. Piso, my son-in-law, it is scarcely\npossible to mention any one who was blessed with a finer capacity. He was\nconstantly employed either in public speaking, and private declamatory\nexercises, or, at least, in writing and thinking: and, consequently, he\nmade such a rapid progress, that he rather seemed to fly than to run. He\nhad an elegant choice of expression, and the structure of his periods was\nperfectly neat and harmonious; he had an astonishing variety and strength\nof argument, and a lively and agreeable turn of sentiment: and his gesture\nwas naturally so graceful, that it appeared to have been formed (which it\nreally was not) by the nicest rules of art. I am rather fearful, indeed,\nthat I should be thought to have been prompted by my affection for him to\nhave given him a greater character than he deserved: but this is so far\nfrom being the case, that I might justly have ascribed to him many\nqualities of a different and more valuable nature: for in continence,\nsocial piety, and every other kind of virtue, there was scarcely any of\nhis cotemporaries who was worthy to be compared with him.--M. Caelius too\nmust not pass unnoticed, notwithstanding the unhappy change, either of his\nfortune or disposition, which marked the latter part of his life. As long\nas he was directed by my influence, he behaved himself so well as a\nTribune of the people, that no man supported the interests of the Senate,\nand of all the good and virtuous, in opposition to the factious and unruly\nmadness of a set of abandoned citizens, with more firmness than _he_ did:\na part in which he was enabled to exert himself to great advantage, by the\nforce and dignity of his language, and his lively humour, and genteel\naddress. He spoke several harangues in a very sensible style, and three\nspirited invectives, which originated from our political disputes: and his\ndefensive speeches, though not equal to the former, were yet tolerably\ngood, and had a degree of merit which was far from being contemptible.\nAfter he had been advanced to the Aedileship, by the hearty approbation of\nall the better sort of citizens, as he had lost my company (for I was then\nabroad in Cilicia) he likewise lost himself; and entirely sunk his credit,\nby imitating the conduct of those very men, whom he had before so\nsuccessfully opposed.--But M. Calidius has a more particular claim to our\nnotice for the singularity of his character; which cannot so properly be\nsaid to have entitled him to a place among our other Orators, as to\ndistinguish him from the whole fraternity; for in him we beheld the most\nuncommon, and the most delicate sentiments, arrayed in the softest and\nfinest language imaginable. Nothing could be so easy as the turn and\ncompass of his periods; nothing so ductile; nothing more pliable and\nobsequious to his will, so that he had a greater command of it than any\nOrator whatever. In short, the flow of his language was so pure and\nlimpid, that nothing could be clearer; and so free, that it was never\nclogged or obstructed. Every word was exactly in the place where it should\nbe, and disposed (as Lucilius expresses it) with as much nicety as in a\ncurious piece of Mosaic-work. We may add, that he had not a single\nexpression which was either harsh, unnatural, abject, or far-fetched; and\nyet he was so far from confining himself to the plain and ordinary mode of\nspeaking, that he abounded greatly in the metaphor,--but such metaphors as\ndid not appear to usurp a post that belonged to another, but only to\noccupy their own. These delicacies were displayed not in a loose and\ndisfluent style; but in such a one as was strictly _numerous_, without\n_either_ appearing to be so, or running on with a dull uniformity of\nsound. He was likewise master of the various ornaments of language and\nsentiment which the Greeks call _figures_, whereby he enlivened and\nembellished his style as with so many forensic decorations. We may add\nthat he readily discovered, upon all occasions, what was the real point of\ndebate, and where the stress of the argument lay; and that his method of\nranging his ideas was extremely artful, his action genteel, and his whole\nmanner very engaging and very sensible. In short, if to speak agreeably is\nthe chief merit of an Orator, you will find no one who was better\nqualified than Calidius. But as we have observed a little before, that it\nis the business of an Orator to instruct, to please, and _to move the\npassions_; he was, indeed, perfectly master of the two first; for no one\ncould better elucidate his subject, or charm the attention of his\naudience. But as to the third qualification,--the moving and alarming the\npassions,--which is of much greater efficacy than the two former, he was\nwholly destitute of it. He had no force,--no exertion;--either by his own\nchoice, and from an opinion that those who had a loftier turn of\nexpression, and a more warm and spirited action, were little betther than\nmadmen; or because it was contrary to his natural temper, and habitual\npractice; or, lastly, because it was beyond the strength of his abilities.\nIf, indeed, it is a useless quality, his want of it was a real excellence:\nbut if otherwise, it was certainly a defect. I particularly remember, that\nwhen he prosecuted Q. Gallius for an attempt to poison him, and pretended\nthat he had the plainest proofs of it, and could produce many letters,\nwitnesses, informations, and other evidences to put the truth of his\ncharge beyond a doubt, interspersing many sensible and ingenious remarks\non the nature of the crime;--I remember, I say, that when it came to my\nturn to reply to him, after urging every argument which the case itself\nsuggested, I insisted upon it as a material circumstance in favour of my\nclient, that the prosecutor, while he charged him with a design against\nhis life, and assured us that he had the most indubitable proofs of it\nthen in his hands, related his story with as much ease, and as much\ncalmness, and indifference, as if nothing had happened.\"--\"Would it have\nbeen possible,\" said I, (addressing myself to Calidius) \"that you should\nspeak with this air of unconcern, unless the charge was purely an\ninvention of your own? and, above all, that you, whose Eloquence has often\nvindicated the wrongs of other people with so much spirit, should speak so\ncoolly of a crime which threatened your life? Where was that expression of\nresentment which is so natural to the injured? Where that ardour, that\neagerness, which extorts the most pathetic language even from men of the\ndullest capacities? There was no visible disorder in your mind, no emotion\nin your looks and gesture, no smiting of the thigh or the forehead, nor\neven a single stamp of the foot. You was, therefore, so far from\ninteresting our passions in your favour, that we could scarcely keep our\neyes open, while you was relating the dangers you had so narrowly escaped.\nThus we employed the natural defect, or if you please, the sensible\ncalmness of an excellent Orator, as an argument to invalidate his\ncharge.\"--\"But is it possible to doubt,\" cried Brutus, \"whether this was a\nsensible quality, or a defect? For as the greatest merit of an Orator is\nto be able to inflame the passions, and give them such a biass as shall\nbest answer his purpose; he who is destitute of this must certainly be\ndeficient in the most capital part of his profession.\"--\"I am of the same\nopinion,\" said I; \"but let us now proceed to him (Hortensius) who is the\nonly remaining Orator worth noticing; after which, as you may seem to\ninsist upon it, I shall say something of myself. I must first, however, do\njustice to the memory of two promising youths, who, if they had lived to a\nriper age, would have acquired the highest reputation for their\nEloquence.\"--\"You mean, I suppose,\" said Brutus, \"C. Curio, and C.\nLicinius Calvus.\"--\"The very same,\" replied I. \"One of them, besides his\nplausible manner, had such an easy and voluble flow of expression, and\nsuch an inexhaustible variety, and sometimes accuracy of sentiment, that\nhe was one of the most ready and ornamental speakers of his time. Though\nhe had received but little instruction from the professed masters of the\nart, Nature had furnished him with an admirable capacity of the practice\nof it. I never, indeed, discovered in him any great degree of application;\nbut he was certainly very ambitious to distinguish himself; and if he had\ncontinued to listen to my advice, as he had begun to do, he would have\npreferred the acquisition of real honour to that of untimely grandeur.\"--\n\"What do you mean,\" said Brutus? \"Or in what manner are these two objects\nto be distinguished?\"--\"I distinguish them thus,\" replied I: \"As honour is\nthe reward of virtue, conferred upon a man by the choice and affection of\nhis fellow-citizens, he who obtains it by their free votes and suffrages\nis to be considered, in my opinion, as an honourable member of the\ncommunity. But he who acquires his power and authority by taking advantage\nof every unhappy incident, and without the consent of his fellow-citizens,\nas Curio aimed to do, acquires only the name of honour, without the\nsubstance. Whereas, if he had hearkened to me, he would have risen to the\nhighest dignity, in an honourable manner, and with the hearty approbation\nof all men, by a gradual advancement to public offices, as his father and\nmany other eminent citizens had done before. I often gave the same advice\nto P. Crassus, the son of Marcus, who courted my friendship in the early\npart of his life; and recommended it to him very warmly, to consider\n_that_ as the truest path to honour which had been already marked out to\nhim by the example of his ancestors. For he had been extremely well\neducated, and was perfectly versed in every branch of polite literature:\nhe had likewise a penetrating genius, and an elegant variety of\nexpression; and appeared grave and sententious without arrogance, and\nmodest and diffident without dejection. But like many other young men he\nwas carried away by the tide of ambition; and after serving a short time\nwith reputation as a volunteer, nothing could satisfy him but to try his\nfortune as a General,--an employment which was confined by the wisdom of\nour ancestors to men who had arrived at a certain age, and who, even then,\nwere obliged to submit their pretensions to the uncertain issue of a\npublic decision. Thus, by exposing himself to a fatal catastrophe, while\nhe was endeavouring to rival the fame of Cyrus and Alexander, who lived to\nfinish their desperate career, he lost all resemblance of L. Crassus, and\nhis other worthy Progenitors.\n\n\"But let us return to Calvus whom we have just mentioned,--an Orator who\nhad received more literary improvements than Curio, and had a more\naccurate and delicate manner of speaking, which he conducted with great\ntaste and elegance; but, (by being too minute and nice a critic upon\nhimself,) while he was labouring to correct and refine his language, he\nsuffered all the force and spirit of it to evaporate. In short, it was so\nexquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but\nit was little noticed by the common people in a crowded Forum, which is\nthe proper theatre of Eloquence.\"--\"His aim,\" said Brutus, \"was to be\nadmired as an _Attic_ Orator: and to this we must attribute that accurate\nexility of style, which he constantly affected.\"--\"This, indeed, was his\nprofessed character,\" replied I: \"but he was deceived himself, and led\nothers into the same mistake. It is true, whoever supposes that to speak\nin the _Attic_ taste, is to avoid every awkward, every harsh, every\nvicious expression, has, in this sense, an undoubted right to refuse his\napprobation to every thing which is not strictly _Attic_. For he must\nnaturally detest whatever is insipid, disgusting, or invernacular; while\nhe considers a correctness and propriety of language as the religion, and\ngood-manners of an Orator:--and every one who pretends to speak in public\nshould adopt the same opinion. But if he bestows the name of Atticism on a\nhalf-starved, a dry, and a niggardly turn of expression, provided it is\nneat, correct, and genteel, I cannot say, indeed, that he bestows it\nimproperly; as the Attic Orators, however, had many qualities of a more\nimportant nature, I would advise him to be careful that he does not\noverlook their different kinds and degrees of merit, and their great\nextent and variety of character. The Attic Speakers, he will tell me, are\nthe models upon which he wishes to form his Eloquence. But which of them\ndoes he mean to fix upon? for they are not all of the same cast. Who, for\ninstance, could be more unlike each other than Demosthenes and Lysias? or\nthan Demosthenes and Hyperides? Or who more different from either of them,\nthan Aeschines? Which of them, then, do you propose to imitate? If only\n_one_, this will be a tacit implication, that none of the rest were true\nmasters of Atticism: if _all_, how can you possibly succeed, when their\ncharacters are so opposite? Let me further ask you, whether Demetrius\nPhalereus spoke in the Attic style? In my opinion, his Orations have the\nvery smell of Athens. But he is certainly more florid than either\nHyperides or Lysias; partly from the natural turn of his genius, and\npartly by choice. There were likewise two others, at the time we are\nspeaking of, whose characters were equally dissimilar; and yet both of\nthem were truly _Attic_. The first (Charisius) was the author of a number\nof speeches, which he composed for his friends, professedly in imitation\nof Lysias:--and the other (Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes) wrote\nseveral Orations, and a regular History of what was transacted in Athens\nunder his own observation; not so much, indeed, in the style of an\nHistorian, as of an Orator. Hegesias took the former for his model, and\nhad so vain a conceit of his own taste for Atticism, that he considered\nhis predecessors, who were really masters of it, as mere rustics in\ncomparison of himself. But what can be more insipid, more frivolous, or\nmore puerile, than that very concinnity of expression which he actually\nacquired?\"--\"_But still we wish to resemble the Attic Speakers_.\"--\"Do so,\nby all means. But were not those, then, true Attic Speakers, we have just\nbeen mentioning?\"--\"_Nobody denies it; and these are the men we\nimitate._\"--\"But how? when they are so very different, not only from each\nother, but from all the rest of their contemporaries?\"--\"_True; but\nThucydides is our leading pattern_.\"--\"This too I can allow, if you design\nto compose histories, instead of pleading causes. For Thucydides was both\nan exact, and a stately historian: but he never intended to write models\nfor conducting a judicial process. I will even go so far as to add, that I\nhave often commended the speeches which he has inserted into his history\nin great numbers; though I must frankly own, that I neither _could_\nimitate them, if I _would,_ nor indeed _would,_ if I _could;_ like a man\nwho would neither choose his wine so new as to have been turned off in the\npreceding vintage, nor so excessively old as to date its age from the\nconsulship of Opimius or Anicius.\"--\"_The latter_, you'll say, _bears the\nhighest price_.\" \"Very probable; but when it has too much age, it has lost\nthat delicious flavour which pleases the palate, and, in my opinion, is\nscarcely tolerable.\"--\"_Would you choose, then, when you have a mind to\nregale yourself, to apply to a fresh, unripened cask?_\" \"By no means; but\nstill there is a certain age, when good wine arrives at its utmost\nperfection. In the same manner, I would recommend neither a raw,\nunmellowed style, which, (if I may so express myself) has been newly drawn\noff from the vat; nor the rough, and antiquated language of the grave and\nmanly Thucydides. For even _he_, if he had lived a few years later, would\nhave acquired a much softer and mellower turn of expression.\"--\"_Let us,\nthen, imitate Demosthenes_.\"--\"Good Gods! to what else do I direct all my\nendeavours, and my wishes! But it is, perhaps, my misfortune not to\nsucceed. These _Atticisers_, however, acquire with ease the paltry\ncharacter they aim at; not once recollecting that it is not only recorded\nin history, but must have been the natural consequence of his superior\nfame, that when Demosthenes was to speak in public, all Greece flocked in\ncrowds to hear him. But when our _Attic_ gentry venture to speak, they are\npresently deserted not only by the little throng around them who have no\ninterest in the dispute, (which alone is a mortifying proof of their\ninsignificance) but even by their associates and fellow-advocates. If to\nspeak, therefore, in a dry and lifeless manner, is the true criterion of\nAtticism, they are heartily welcome to enjoy the credit of it: but if they\nwish to put their abilities to the trial, let them attend the Comitia, or\na judicial process of real importance. The open Forum demands a fuller,\nand more elevated tone: and _he_ is the Orator for me, who is so\nuniversally admired that when he is to plead an interesting cause, all the\nbenches are filled beforehand, the tribunal crowded, the clerks and\nnotaries busy in adjusting their seats, the populace thronging about the\nrostra, and the judge brisk, and vigilant;--_he_, who has such a\ncommanding air, that when he rises up to speak, the whole audience is\nhushed into a profound silence, which is soon interrupted by their\nrepeated plaudits, and acclamations, or by those successive bursts of\nlaughter, or violent transports of passion, which he knows how to excite\nat his pleasure; so that even a distant observer, though unacquainted with\nthe subject he is speaking upon, can easily discover that his hearers are\npleased with him, and that a _Roscius_ is performing his part on the\nstage. Whoever has the happiness to be thus followed and applauded is,\nbeyond dispute, an _Attic_ speaker: for such was Pericles,--such was\nHyperides, and Aeschines,--and such, in the most eminent degree, was the\ngreat Demosthenes! If indeed, these connoisseurs, who have so much dislike\nto every thing bold and ornamental, only mean to say that an accurate, a\njudicious, and a neat, and compact, but unembellished style, is really an\n_Attic_ one, they are not mistaken. For in an art of such wonderful extent\nand variety as that of speaking, even this subtile and confined character\nmay claim a place: so that the conclusion will be, that it is very\npossible to speak in the _Attic_ taste, without deserving the name of an\nOrator; but that all in general who are truly eloquent, are likewise\n_Attic_ Speakers.--It is time, however, to return to Hortensius.\"--\"\nIndeed, I think so,\" cried Brutus: \"though I must acknowledge that this\nlong digression of yours has entertained me very agreeably.\"\n\n\"But I made some remarks,\" said Atticus, \"which I had several times a mind\nto mention; only I was loath to interrupt you. As your discourse, however,\nseems to be drawing towards an end, I think I may venture to out with\nthem.\"--\"By all means,\" replied I.--\"I readily grant, then,\" said he,\n\"that there is something very humourous and elegant in that continued\n_Irony_, which Socrates employs to so much advantage in the dialogues of\nPlato, Xenophon, and Aeschines. For when a dispute commences on the nature\nof wisdom, he professes, with a great deal of humour and ingenuity, to\nhave no pretensions to it himself; while, with a kind of concealed\nraillery, he ascribes the highest degree of it to those who had the\narrogance to lay an open claim to it. Thus, in Plato, he extols\nProtagoras, Hippias, Prodicus, Gorgias, and several others, to the skies:\nbut represents himself as a mere ignorant. This in _him_ was peculiarly\nbecoming; nor can I agree with Epicurus, who thinks it censurable. But in\na professed History, (for such, in fact, is the account you have been\ngiving us of the Roman Orators) I shall leave you to judge, whether an\napplication of the _Irony_ is not equally reprehensible, as it would be in\ngiving a judicial evidence.\"--\"Pray, what are you driving at,\" said I,--\n\"for I cannot comprehend you.\"--\"I mean,\" replied he, \"in the first place,\nthat the commendations which you have bestowed upon some of our Orators,\nhave a tendency to mislead the opinion of those who are unacquainted with\ntheir true characters. There were likewise several parts of your account,\nat which I could scarcely forbear laughing: as, for instance, when you\ncompared old Cato to Lysias. He was, indeed, a great, and a very\nextraordinary man. Nobody, I believe, will say to the contrary. But shall\nwe call him an Orator? Shall we pronounce him the rival of Lysias, who was\nthe most finished character of the kind? If we mean to jest, this\ncomparison of your's would form a pretty _Irony_: but if we are talking in\nreal earnest, we should pay the same scrupulous regard to truth, as if we\nwere giving evidence upon oath. As a Citizen, a Senator, a General, and,\nin short, a man who was distinguished by his prudence, his activity, and\nevery other virtue, your favourite Cato has my highest approbation. I can\nlikewise applaud his speeches, considering the time he lived in. They\nexhibit the out-lines of a great genius; but such, however, as are\nevidently rude and imperfect. In the same manner, when you represented his\n_Antiquities_ as replete with all the graces of Oratory, and compared Cato\nwith Philistus and Thucydides, did you really imagine, that you could\npersuade me and Brutus to believe you? or would you seriously degrade\nthose, whom none of the Greeks themselves have been able to equal, into a\ncomparison with a stiff country, gentleman, who scarcely suspected that\nthere was any such thing in being, as a copious and ornamental style? You\nhave likewise said much in commendation of Galba;--if as the best Speaker\nof his age, I can so far agree with you, for such was the character he\nbore:--but if you meant to recommend him as an _Orator_, produce his\nOrations (for they are still extant) and then tell me honestly, whether\nyou would wish your friend Brutus here to speak as _he_? Lepidus too was\nthe author of several Speeches, which have received your approbation; in\nwhich I can partly join with you, if you consider them only as specimens\nof our ancient Eloquence. The same might be said of Africanus and Laelius,\nthan whose language (you tell us) nothing in the world can be sweeter:\nnay, you have mentioned it with a kind of veneration, and endeavoured to\ndazzle our judgment by the great character they bore, and the uncommon\nelegance of their manners. Divest it of these adventitious Graces, and\nthis sweet language of theirs will appear so homely, as to be scarcely\nworth noticing. Carbo too was mentioned as one of our capital Orators; and\nfor this only reason,--that in speaking, as in all other professions,\nwhatever is the best of its kind, for the time being, how deficient soever\nin reality, is always admired and applauded. What I have said of Carbo, is\nequally true of the Gracchi: though, in some particulars, the character\nyou have given them was no more than they deserved. But to say nothing of\nthe rest of your Orators, let us proceed to Antonius and Crassus, your two\nparagons of Eloquence, whom I have heard myself, and who were certainly\nvery able Speakers. To the extraordinary commendation you have bestowed\nupon them, I can readily give my assent; but not, however, in such an\nunlimited manner as to persuade myself that you have received as much\nimprovement from the Speech in support of the Servilian Law, as Lysippus\nsaid he had done by studying the famous [Footnote: _Doryphorus_. A Spear-\nman.] statue of Polycletus. What you have said on _this_ occasion I\nconsider as an absolute _Irony:_ but I shall not inform you why I think\nso, lest you should imagine I design to flatter you. I shall therefore\npass over the many fine encomiums you have bestowed upon _these_; and what\nyou have said of Cotta and Sulpicius, and but very lately of your pupil\nCaelius. I acknowledge, however, that we may call them Orators: but as to\nthe nature and extent of their merit, let your own judgment decide. It is\nscarcely worth observing, that you have had the additional good-nature to\ncrowd so many daubers into your list, that there are some, I believe, who\nwill be ready to wish they had died long ago, that you might have had an\nopportunity to insert _their_ names among the rest.\"--\"You have opened a\nwide field of enquiry,\" said I, \"and started a subject which deserves a\nseparate discussion; but we must defer it to a more convenient time. For,\nto settle it, a great variety of authors must be examined, and especially\n_Cato_: which could not fail to convince you, that nothing was wanting to\ncomplete his pieces, but those rich and glowing colours which had not then\nbeen invented. As to the above Oration of Crassus, he himself, perhaps,\ncould have written better, if he had been willing to take the trouble; but\nnobody else, I believe, could have mended it. You have no reason,\ntherefore, to think I spoke _ironically_, when I mentioned it as the guide\nand _tutoress_ of my Eloquence: for though you seem to have a higher\nopinion of my capacity, in its present state, you must remember that, in\nour youth, we could find nothing better to imitate among the Romans. And\nas to my admitting so _many_ into my list of Orators, I only did it (as I\nhave already observed) to shew how few have succeeded in a profession, in\nwhich all were desirous to excel. I therefore insist upon it that you do\nnot consider _me_ in the present case, as an _Ironist_; though we are\ninformed by C. Fannius, in his History, that _Africanus_ was a very\nexcellent one.\"--\"As you please about _that_,\" cried Atticus: \"though, by\nthe bye, I did not imagine it would have been any disgrace to you, to be\nwhat Africanus and Socrates have been before you.\"--\"We may settle _this_\nanother time,\" interrupted Brutus: \"but will you be so obliging,\" said he,\n(addressing himself to _me_) \"as to give us a critical analysis of some of\nthe old speeches you have mentioned?\"--\"Very willingly,\" replied I; \"but\nit must be at Cuma, or Tusculum, when opportunity offers: for we are near\nneighbours, you know, in both places. At present, let us return to\n_Hortensius_, from whom we have digressed a second time.\"\n\n\"Hortensius, then, who began to speak in public when he was very young,\nwas soon employed even in causes of the greatest moment: and though he\nfirst appeared in the time of Cotta and Sulpicius, (who were only ten\nyears older) and when Crassus and Antonius, and afterwards Philip and\nJulius, were in the height of their reputation, he was thought worthy to\nbe compared with either of them in point of Eloquence. He had such an\nexcellent memory as I never knew in any person; so that what he had\ncomposed in private, he was able to repeat, without notes, in the very\nsame words he had made use of at first. He employed this natural advantage\nwith so much readiness, that he not only recollected whatever he had\nwritten or premeditated himself, but remembered every thing that had been\nsaid by his opponents, without the help of a prompter. He was likewise\ninflamed with such a passionate fondness for the profession, that I never\nsaw any one, who took more pains to improve himself; for he would not\nsuffer a day to elapse, without either speaking in the Forum, or composing\nsomething at home; and very often he did both in the same day. He had,\nbesides, a turn of expression which was very far from being low and\nunelevated; and possessed two other accomplishments, in which no one could\nequal him,--an uncommon clearness and accuracy in stating the points he\nwas to speak to; and a neat and easy manner of collecting the substance of\nwhat had been said by his antagonist, and by himself. He had likewise an\nelegant choice of words, an agreeable flow in his periods, and a copious\nElocution, which he was partly indebted for to a fine natural capacity,\nand partly acquired by the most laborious rhetorical exercises. In short,\nhe had a most retentive view of his subject, and always divided and\nparcelled it out with the greatest exactness; and he very seldom\noverlooked any thing which the case could suggest, that was proper either\nto support his _own_ allegations, or to refute those of his opponent.\nLastly, he had a sweet and sonorous voice; and his gesture had rather more\nart in it, and was more exactly managed, than is requisite to an Orator.\n\n\"While _he_ was in the height of his glory, Crassus died, Cotta was\nbanished, our public trials were intermitted by the Marsic war, and I\nmyself made my first appearance in the Forum. Hortensius joined the army,\nand served the first campaign as a volunteer, and the second as a military\nTribune: Sulpicius was made a lieutenant general; and Antonius was absent\non a similar account. The only trial we had, was that upon the Varian Law;\nthe rest, as I have just observed, having been intermitted by the war. We\nhad scarcely any body left at the bar but L. Memmius, and Q. Pompeius, who\nspoke mostly on their own affairs; and, though far from being Orators of\nthe first distinction, were yet tolerable ones, (if we may credit\nPhilippus, who was himself a man of some Eloquence) and in supporting an\nevidence, displayed all the poignancy of a prosecutor, with a moderate\nfreedom of Elocution. The rest, who were esteemed our capital Speakers,\nwere then in the magistracy, and I had the benefit of hearing their\nharangues almost every day. C. Curio was chosen a Tribune of the people;\nthough he left off speaking after being once deserted by his whole\naudience. To him I may add Q. Metellus Celer, who, though certainly no\nOrator, was far from being destitute of utterance: but Q. Varius, C.\nCarbo, and Cn. Pomponius, were men of real Elocution, and might almost be\nsaid to have lived upon the Rostra. C. Julius too, who was then a Curule\nAedile, was daily employed in making Speeches to the people, which were\ncomposed with great neatness and accuracy. But while I attended the Forum\nwith this eager curiosity, my first disappointment was the banishment of\nCotta: after which I continued to hear the rest with the same assiduity as\nbefore; and though I daily spent the remainder of my time in reading,\nwriting, and private declamation, I cannot say that I much relished my\nconfinement to these preparatory exercises. The next year Q. Varius was\ncondemned, and banished, by his own law: and I, that I might acquire a\ncompetent knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, then attached\nmyself to Q. Scaevola, the son of Publius, who, though he did not choose\nto undertake the charge of a pupil, yet by freely giving his advice to\nthose who consulted him, he answered every purpose of instruction to such\nas took the trouble to apply to him. In the succeeding year, in which\nSylla and Pompey were Consuls, as Sulpicius, who was elected a Tribune of\nthe people, had occasion to speak in public almost every day, I had an\nopportunity to acquaint myself thoroughly with his manner of speaking. At\nthis time Philo, a philosopher of the first name _in the Academy_, with\nmany of the principal Athenians, having deserted their native home, and\nfled to Rome, from the fury of Mithridates, I immediately became his\nscholar, and was exceedingly taken with his philosophy; and, besides the,\npleasure I received from the great variety and sublimity of his matter, I\nwas still more inclined to confine, my attention to that study; because\nthere was reason to apprehend that our laws and judicial proceedings would\nbe wholly overturned by the continuance of the public disorders. In the\nsame year Sulpicius lost his life; and Q. Catulus, M. Antonius, and C.\nJulius, three Orators, who were partly cotemporary with each other, were\nmost inhumanly put to death. Then also I attended the lectures of Molo the\nRhodian, who was newly come to Rome, and was both an excellent Pleader,\nand an able Teacher of the Art. I have mentioned these particulars, which,\nperhaps, may appear foreign to our purpose, that _you_, my Brutus, (for\nAtticus is already acquainted with them) may be able to mark my progress,\nand observe how closely I trod upon the heels of Hortensius.\n\n\"The three following years the city was free from the tumult of arms; but\neither by the death, the voluntary retirement, or the flight of our ablest\nOrators (for even M. Crassus, and the two Lentuli, who were then in the\nbloom of youth, had all left us) Hortensius, of course, was the first\nSpeaker in the Forum. Antistius too was daily rising into reputation,--\nPiso pleaded pretty often,--Pomponius not so frequently,--Carbo very\nseldom,--and Philippus only once or twice. In the mean while I pursued my\nstudies of every kind, day and night, with unremitting application. I\nlodged and boarded at my own house [where he lately died] Diodotus the\nStoic; whom I employed as my preceptor in various other parts of learning,\nbut particularly in Logic, which may be considered as a close and\ncontracted species of Eloquence; and without which, you yourself have\ndeclared it impossible to acquire that full and perfect Eloquence, which\nthey suppose to be an open and dilated kind of Logic. Yet with all my\nattention to Diodotus, and the various arts he was master of, I never\nsuffered even a single day to escape me, without some exercise of the\noratorial kind. I constantly declaimed in private with M. Piso, Q.\nPompeius, or some other of my acquaintance; pretty often in Latin, but\nmuch oftener in Greek; because the Greek furnishes a greater variety of\nornaments, and an opportunity of imitating and introducing them into the\nLatin; and because the Greek masters, who were far the best, could not\ncorrect and improve us, unless we declaimed in that language. This time\nwas distinguished by a violent struggle to restore the liberty of the\nRepublic:--the barbarous slaughter of the three Orators, Scaevola, Carbo,\nand Antistius;--the return of Cotta, Curio, Crassus, Pompey, and the\nLentuli;--the re-establishment of the laws and courts of judicature;--and\nthe intire restoration of the Commonwealth: but we lost Pomponius,\nCensorinus, and Murena, from the roll of Orators.\n\n\"I now began, for the _first_ time, to undertake the management of causes,\nboth private and public; not, as most did, with a view to learn my\nprofession, but to make a trial of the abilities which I had taken so much\npains to acquire. I had then a second opportunity of attending the\ninstructions of Molo; who came to Rome, while Sylla was Dictator, to\nsollicit the payment of what was due to his countrymen, for their services\nin the Mithridatic war. My defence of Sext. Roscius, which was the first\ncause I pleaded, met with such a favourable reception, that, from that\nmoment, I was looked upon as an advocate of the first class, and equal to\nthe greatest and most important causes: and after this I pleaded many\nothers, which I pre-composed with all the care and accuracy I was master\nof.\n\n\"But as you seem desirous not so much to be acquainted with any incidental\nmarks of my character, or the first sallies of my youth, as to know me\nthoroughly, I shall mention some particulars, which otherwise might have\nseemed unnecessary. At this time my body was exceedingly weak and\nemaciated; my neck long, and slender; a shape and habit, which I thought\nto be liable to great risk of life, if engaged in any violent fatigue, or\nlabour of the lungs. And it gave the greater alarm to those who had a\nregard for me, that I used to speak without any remission or variation,\nwith the utmost stretch of my voice, and a total agitation of my body.\nWhen my friends, therefore, and physicians, advised me to meddle no more\nwith forensic causes, I resolved to run any hazard, rather than quit the\nhopes of glory, which I had proposed to myself from pleading: but when I\nconsidered, that by managing my voice, and changing my way of speaking, I\nmight both avoid all future danger of that kind, and speak with greater\nease, I took a resolution of travelling into Asia, merely for an\nopportunity to correct my manner of speaking. So that after I had been two\nyears at the Bar, and acquired some reputation in the Forum, I left Rome.\nWhen I came to Athens, I spent six months with Antiochus, the principal\nand most judicious Philosopher of _the old Academy_; and under this able\nmaster, I renewed those philosophical studies which I had laboriously\ncultivated and improved from my earliest youth. At the same time, however,\nI continued my _rhetorical Exercises_ under Demetrius the Syrian, an\nexperienced and reputable master of the Art of Speaking.\n\n\"After leaving Athens, I traversed every part of Asia, where I was\nvoluntarily attended by the principal Orators of the country with whom I\nrenewed my rhetorical Exercises. The chief of them was Menippus of\nStratonica, the most eloquent of all the Asiatics: and if to be neither\ntedious nor impertinent is the characteristic of an Attic Orator, he may\nbe justly ranked in that class. Dionysius also of Magnesia, Aeschilus of\nCnidos, and Xenocles of Adramyttus, who were esteemed the first\nRhetoricians of Asia, were continually with me. Not contented with these,\nI went to Rhodes, and applied myself again to Molo, whom I had heard\nbefore at Rome; and who was both an experienced pleader, and a fine\nwriter, and particularly judicious in remarking the faults of his\nscholars, as well as in his method of teaching and improving them. His\nprincipal trouble with me, was to restrain the luxuriancy of a juvenile\nimagination, always ready to overflow its banks, within its due and proper\nchannel. Thus, after an excursion of two years, I returned to Italy, not\nonly much improved, but almost changed into a new man. The vehemence of my\nvoice and action was considerably abated; the excessive ardour of my\nlanguage was corrected; my lungs were strengthened; and my whole\nconstitution confirmed and settled.\n\n\"Two Orators then reigned in the Forum; (I mean Cotta and Hortensius)\nwhose glory fired my emulation. Cotta's way of speaking was calm and easy,\nand distinguished by the flowing elegance and propriety of his language.\nThe other was splendid, warm, and animated; not such as you, my Brutus,\nhave seen him when he had shed the blossom of his eloquence, but far more\nlively and pathetic both in his style and action. As Hortensius,\ntherefore, was nearer to me in age, and his manner more agreeable to the\nnatural ardour of my temper, I considered him as the proper object of my\ncompetition. For I observed that when they were both engaged in the same\ncause, (as for instance, when they defended M. Canuleius, and Cn.\nDolabella, a man of consular dignity) though Cotta was generally employed\nto open the defence, the most important parts of it were left to the\nmanagement of Hortensius. For a crowded audience, and a clamorous Forum,\nrequire an Orator who is lively, animated, full of action, and able to\nexert his voice to the highest pitch. The first year, therefore, after my\nreturn from Asia, I undertook several capital causes; and in the interim I\nput up as a candidate for the Quaestorship, Cotta for the Consulate, and\nHortensius for the Aedileship. After I was chosen Quaestor, I passed a\nyear in Sicily, the province assigned to me by lot: Cotta went as Consul\ninto Gaul: and Hortensius, whose new office required his presence at Rome,\nwas left of course the undisputed sovereign of the Forum. In the\nsucceeding year, when I returned from Sicily, my oratorial talents, such\nas they were, displayed themselves in their full perfection and maturity.\n\n\"I have been saying too much, perhaps, concerning myself: but my design in\nit was not to make a parade of my eloquence and ability, which I have no\ntemptation to do, but only to specify the pains and labour which I have\ntaken to improve it. After spending the five succeeding years in pleading\na variety of causes, and with the ablest Advocates of the time, I was\ndeclared an Aedile, and undertook the patronage of the Sicilians against\nHortensius, who was then one of the Consuls elect. But as the subject of\nour conversation not only requires an historical detail of Orators, but\nsuch preceptive remarks as may be necessary to elucidate their characters;\nit will not be improper to make some observations of this kind upon that\nof Hortensius. After his appointment to the consulship (very probably,\nbecause he saw none of consular dignity who were able to rival him, and\ndespised the competition of others of inferior rank) he began to remit\nthat intense application which he had hitherto persevered in from his\nchildhood; and having settled himself in very affluent circumstances, he\nchose to live for the future what he thought an _easy_ life, but which, in\ntruth, was rather an indolent one. In the three succeeding years, the\nbeauty of his colouring was so much impaired, as to be very perceptible to\na skilful connoisseur, though not to a common observer. After that, he\ngrew every day more unlike himself than before, not only in other parts of\nEloquence, but by a gradual decay of the former celerity and elegant\ntexture of his language. I, at the same time, spared no pains to improve\nand enlarge my talents, such as they were, by every exercise that was\nproper for the purpose, but particularly by that of writing. Not to\nmention several other advantages I derived from it, I shall only observe,\nthat about this time, and but a very few years after my Aedileship, I was\ndeclared the first Praetor, by the unanimous suffrages of my fellow-\ncitizens. For, by my diligence and assiduity as a Pleader, and my accurate\nway of speaking, which was rather superior to the ordinary style of the\nBar, the novelty of my Eloquence had engaged the attention, and secured\nthe good wishes of the public. But I will say nothing of myself: I will\nconfine my discourse to our other Speakers, among whom there is not one\nwho has gained more than a common acquaintance with those parts of\nliterature, which feed the springs of Eloquence:--not one who has been\nthoroughly nurtured at the breast of Philosophy, which is the mother of\nevery excellence either in deed or speech:--not one who has acquired an\naccurate knowledge of the Civil Law, which is so necessary for the\nmanagement even of private causes, and to direct the judgment of an\nOrator:--not one who is a complete master of the Roman History, which\nwould enable us, on many occasions, to appeal to the venerable evidence of\nthe dead:--not one who can entangle his opponent in such a neat and\nhumourous manner, as to relax the severity of the Judges into a smile or\nan open laugh:--not one who knows how to dilate and expand his subject, by\nreducing it from the limited considerations of time, and person, to some\ngeneral and indefinite topic;--not one who knows how to enliven it by an\nagreeable digression: not one who can rouse the indignation of the Judge,\nor extort from him the tear of compassion;--or who can influence and bend\nhis soul (which is confessedly the capital perfection of an Orator) in\nsuch a manner as shall best suit his purpose.\n\n\"When Hortensius, therefore, the once eloquent and admired Hortensius, had\nalmost vanished from the Forum, my appointment to the Consulship, which\nhappened about six years after his own promotion to that office, revived\nhis dying emulation; for he was unwilling that after I had equalled him in\nrank and dignity, I should become his superior in any other respect. But\nin the twelve succeeding years, by a mutual deference to each other's\nabilities, we united our efforts at the Bar in the most amicable manner:\nand my Consulship, which at first had given a short alarm to his jealousy,\nafterward cemented our friendship, by the generous candor with which he\napplauded my conduct. But our emulous efforts were exerted in the most\nconspicuous manner, just before the commencement of that unhappy period,\nwhen Eloquence herself was confounded and terrified by the din of arms\ninto a sudden and a total silence: for after Pompey had proposed and\ncarried a law, which allowed even the party accused but three hours to\nmake his defence, I appeared, (though comparatively as a mere _noviciate_\nby this new regulation) in a number of causes which, in fact, were become\nperfectly the same, or very nearly so; most of which, my Brutus, you was\npresent to hear, as having been my partner and fellow-advocate in many of\nthem, though you pleaded several by yourself; and Hortensius, though he\ndied a short time afterwards, bore his share in these limited efforts. He\nbegan to plead about ten years before the time of your birth; and in his\nsixty-fourth year, but a very few days before his death, he was engaged\nwith you in the defence of Appius, your father-in-law. As to our\nrespective talents, the Orations we have published will enable posterity\nto form a proper judgment of them. But if we mean to inquire, why\nHortensius was more admired for his Eloquence in the younger part of his\nlife, than in his latter years, we shall find it owing to the following\ncauses. The first was, that an _Asiatic_ style is more allowable in a\nyoung man than in an old one. Of this there are two different kinds.\n\n\"The former is sententious and sprightly, and abounds in those turns of\nsentiment which are not so much distinguished by their weight and solidity\nas by their neatness and elegance; of this cast was Timaeus the Historian,\nand the two Orators so much talked of in our younger days, Hierocles the\nAlabandean, and his brother Menecles, but particularly the latter; both\nwhose Orations may be reckoned master-pieces of the kind. The other sort\nis not so remarkable for the plenty and richness of its sentiments, as for\nits rapid volubility of expression, which at present is the ruling taste\nin Asia; but, besides it's uncommon fluency, it is recommended by a choice\nof words which are peculiarly delicate and ornamental:--of this kind were\nAeschylus the Cnidian, and my cotemporary Aeschines the Milesian; for they\nhad an admirable command of language, with very little elegance of\nsentiment. These showy kinds of eloquence are agreeable enough in young\npeople; but they are entirely destitute of that gravity and composure\nwhich befits a riper age. As Hortensius therefore excelled in both, he was\nheard with applause in the earlier part of his life. For he had all that\nfertility and graceful variety of sentiment which distinguished the\ncharacter of Menecles: but, as in Menecles, so in him, there were many\nturns of sentiment which were more delicate and entertaining than really\nuseful, or indeed sometimes convenient. His language also was brilliant\nand rapid, and yet perfectly neat and accurate; but by no means agreeable\nto men of riper years. I have often seen it received by Philippus with the\nutmost derision, and, upon some occasions, with a contemptuous\nindignation: but the younger part of the audience admired it, and the\npopulace were highly pleased with it. In his youth, therefore, he met the\nwarmest approbation of the public, and maintained his post with ease as\nthe first Orator in the Forum. For the style he chose to speak in, though\nit has little weight, or authority, appeared very suitable to his age: and\nas it discovered in him the most visible marks of genius and application,\nand was recommended by the numerous cadence of his periods, he was heard\nwith universal applause. But when the honours he afterwards rose to, and\nthe dignity of his years required something more serious and composed, he\nstill continued to appear in the same character, though it no longer\nbecame him: and as he had, for some considerable time, intermitted those\nexercises, and relaxed that laborious attention which had once\ndistinguished him, though his former neatness of expression, and\nluxuriancy of sentiment still remained, they were stripped of those\nbrilliant ornaments they had been used to wear. For this reason, perhaps,\nmy Brutus, he appeared less pleasing to you than he would have done, if\nyou had been old enough to hear him, when he was fired with emulation and\nflourished in the full bloom of his Eloquence.\n\n\"I am perfectly sensible,\" said Brutus, \"of the justice of your remarks;\nand yet I have always looked upon Hortensius as a great Orator, but\nespecially when he pleaded for Messala, in the time of your absence.\"--\"I\nhave often heard of it,\" replied I, \"and his Oration, which was afterwards\npublished, they say, in the very same words in which he delivered it, is\nno way inferior to the character you give it. Upon the whole, then, his\nreputation flourished from the time of Crassus and Scaevola (reckoning\nfrom the Consulship of the former) to the Consulship of Paullus and\nMarcellus: and I held out in the same career of glory from the\nDictatorship of Sylla, to the period I have last, mentioned. Thus the\nEloquence of Hortensius was extinguished by his _own_ death, and mine by\nthat of the Commonwealth.\"--\"Ominate more favourably, I beg of you,\"\ncried Brutus.--\"As favourably as you please,\" said I, \"and that not so\nmuch upon my own account, as your's. But _his_ death was truly fortunate,\nwho did not live to behold the miseries, which he had long foreseen. For\nwe often lamented, between ourselves, the misfortunes which hung over the\nState, when we discovered the seeds of a civil war in the insatiable\nambition of a few private Citizens, and saw every hope of an accommodation\nexcluded by the rashness and precipitancy of our public counsels. But the\nfelicity which always marked his life, seems to have exempted him, by a\nseasonable death, from the calamities that followed. But, as after the\ndecease of Hortensius, we seem to have been left, my Brutus, as the sole\nguardians of an _orphan_ Eloquence, let us cherish her, within our own\nwalls at least, with a generous fidelity: let us discourage the addresses\nof her worthless, and impertinent suitors; let us preserve her pure and\nunblemished in all her virgin charms, and secure her, to the utmost of our\nability, from the lawless violence of every armed ruffian. I must own,\nhowever, though I am heartily grieved that I entered so late upon the road\nof life, as to be overtaken by a gloomy night of public distress, before I\nhad finished my journey; that I am not a little relieved by the tender\nconsolation which you administered to me in your very agreeable letters;--\nin which you tell me I ought to recollect my courage, since my past\ntransactions are such as will speak for me when I am silent, and survive\nmy death,--and such as, if the Gods permit, will bear an ample testimony\nto the prudence and integrity of my public counsels, by the final\nrestoration of the Republic:--or, if otherwise, by burying me in the\nruins of my country. But when I look upon _you_, my Brutus, it fills me\nwith anguish to reflect that, in the vigour of your youth, and when you\nwas making the most rapid progress in the road to fame, your career was\nsuddenly stopped by the fatal overthrow of the Commonwealth. This unhappy\ncircumstance has stung me to the heart; and not _me_ only; but my worthy\nfriend here, who has the same affection for you, and the same esteem for\nyour merit which I have. We have the warmest wishes for your happiness,\nand heartily pray that you may reap the rewards of your excellent virtues,\nand live to find a Republic in which you will be able, not only to revive,\nbut even to add to the fame of your illustrious ancestors. For the Forum\nwas your birth-right, your native theatre of action; and you was the only\nperson that entered it, who had not only formed his Elocution by a\nrigorous course of private practice, but enriched his Oratory with the\nfurniture of philosophical Science, and thus united the highest virtue to\nthe most consummate Eloquence. Your situation, therefore, wounds us with\nthe double anxiety, that _you_ are deprived of the _Republic_, and the\nRepublic of _you_. But still continue, my Brutus, (notwithstanding the\ncareer of your genius has been checked by the rude shock of our public\ndistresses) continue to pursue your favourite studies, and endeavour (what\nyou have almost, or rather intirely effected already) to distinguish\nyourself from the promiscuous crowd of Pleaders with which I have loaded\nthe little history I have been giving you. For it would ill befit you,\n(richly furnished as you are with those liberal Arts, which, unable to\nacquire at home, you imported from that celebrated city which has always\nbeen revered as the seat of learning) to pass after all as an ordinary\nPleader. For to what purposes have you studied under Pammenes, the most\neloquent man in Greece; or what advantage have you derived from the\ndiscipline of _the old_ Academy, and it's hereditary master Aristus (my\nguest, and very intimate acquaintance) if you still rank yourself in the\ncommon class of Orators? Have we not seen that a whole age could scarcely\nfurnish two Speakers who really excelled in their profession? Among a\ncrowd of cotemporaries, Galba, for instance, was the only Orator of\ndistinction: for old Cato (we are informed) was obliged to yield to his\nsuperior merit, as were likewise his two juniors Lepidus, and Carbo. But,\nin a public Harangue, the style of his successors the Gracchi was far more\neasy and lively: and yet, even in their time, the Roman Eloquence had not\nreached its perfection. Afterwards came Antonius, and Crassus; and then\nCotta, Sulpicius, Hortensius, and--but I say no more: I can only add, that\nif I had been so fortunate, &c, &c,\"--[_Caetera defunt._]\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORATOR,\nBY MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO;\nADDRESSED TO MARCUS BRUTUS;\nAnd now first translated from the Original Latin.\n\n\n  \"Song charms the Sense, but Eloquence the Soul.\"\n                                            MILTON.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORATOR.\n\n\nWhich, my Brutus, would be the most difficult talk,--to decline answering\na request which you have so often repeated, or to gratify it to your\nsatisfaction,--I have long been at a loss to determine. I should be\nextremely sorry to deny any thing to a friend for whom I have the warmest\nesteem, and who, I am sensible, has an equal affection for me;--\nespecially, as he has only desired me to undertake a subject which may\njustly claim my attention. But to delineate a character, which it would be\nvery difficult, I will not say to _acquire_, but even to _comprehend_ in\nits full extent, I thought was too bold an undertaking for him who reveres\nthe censure of the wife and learned. For considering the great diversity\nof manner among the ablest Speakers, how exceedingly difficult must it be\nto determine which is best, and give a finished model of Eloquence? This,\nhowever, in compliance with your repeated solicitations, I shall now\nattempt;--not so much from any hopes of succeeding, as from a strong\ninclination to make the trial. For I had rather, by yielding to your\nwishes, give you room to complain of my insufficiency; than, by a\nperemptory denial, tempt you to question my friendship.\n\nYou desire to know, then, (and you have often repeated your request) what\nkind of Eloquence I most approve, and can look upon to be so highly\nfinished, as to require no farther improvement. But should I be able to\nanswer your expectations, and display, in his full perfection, the Orator\nyou enquire after; I am afraid I shall retard the industry of many, who,\nenfeebled by despair, will no longer attempt what they think themselves\nincapable of attaining. It is but reasonable, however, that all those who\ncovet what is excellent, and which cannot be acquired without the greatest\napplication, should exert their utmost. But if any one is deficient in\ncapacity, and destitute of that admirable force of genius which Nature\nbestows upon her favourites, or has been denied the advantages of a\nliberal education, _let him make the progress he is able_. For while we\nare driving to overtake the foremost, it is no disgrace to be found among\nthe _second_ class, or even the _third_. Thus, for instance, among the\npoets, we respect the merit not only of a _Homer_ (that I may confine\nmyself to the Greeks) or of _Archilochus, Sophocles_, or _Pindar_, but of\nmany others who occupied the second, or even a lower place. In Philosophy\nalso the diffusive majesty of Plato has not deterred _Aristotle_ from\nentering the list; nor has _Aristotle_ himself, with all his wonderful\nknowledge and fertility of thought, disheartened the endeavours of others.\nNay, men of an elevated genius have not only disdained to be intimidated\nfrom the pursuit of literary fame;--but the very artists and mechanics\nhave never relinquished their profession, because they were unable to\nequal the beauty of that _Iasylus_ which we have seen at Rhodes, or of the\ncelebrated _Venus_ in the island of _Coos_:--nor has the noble image of\nOlympian _Jove_, or the famous statue of the Man at Arms, deterred others\nfrom making trial of their abilities, and exerting their skill to the\nutmost. Accordingly, such a large number of them has appeared, and each\nhas performed so well in his own way, that we cannot help being pleased\nwith their productions, notwithstanding our admiration at the nobler\nefforts of the great masters of the chissel.\n\nBut among the Orators, I mean those of Greece, it is astonishing how much\none of them has surpassed the rest:--and yet, though there was a\n_Demosthenes_, there were even _then_ many other Orators of considerable\nmerit;--and such there were before he made his appearance, nor have they\nbeen wanting since. There is, therefore, no reason why those who have\ndevoted themselves to the study of Eloquence, should suffer their hopes to\nlanguish, or their industry to flag. For, in the first place, even that\nwhich is most excellent is not to be despaired of;--and, in all worthy\nattempts, that which is next to what is best is great and noble.\n\nBut in sketching out the character of a compleat Orator, it is possible I\nmay exhibit such a one as hath never _yet_ existed. For I am not to point\nout the _Speaker_, but to delineate the _Eloquence_ than which nothing can\nbe more perfect of the kind:--an Eloquence which hath blazed forth through\na whole Harangue but seldom, and, it may be, never; but only here and\nthere like a transient gleam, though in some Orators more frequently, and\nin others, perhaps, more sparingly.\n\nMy opinion, then, is,--that there is no human production of any kind, so\ncompleatly beautiful, than which there is not a _something_ still more\nbeautiful, from which the other is copied like a portrait from real life,\nand which can be discerned neither by our eyes nor ears, nor any of our\nbodily senses, but is visible only to thought and imagination. Though the\nstatues, therefore, of Phidias, and the other images above-mentioned, are\nall so wonderfully charming, that nothing can be found which is more\nexcellent of the kind; we may still, however, _suppose_ a something which\nis more exquisite, and more compleat. For it must not be thought that the\ningenious artist, when he was sketching out the form of a Jupiter, or a\nMinerva, borrowed the likeness from any particular object;--but a certain\nadmirable semblance of beauty was present to his mind, which he viewed and\ndwelt upon, and by which his skill and his hand were guided. As,\ntherefore, in mere bodily shape and figure there is a kind of perfection,\nto whose ideal appearance every production which falls under the notice of\nthe eye is referred by imitation; so the semblance of what is perfect in\nOratory may become visible to the mind, and the ear may labour to catch a\nlikeness. These primary forms of thing are by Plato (the father of science\nand good language) called _Ideas_; and he tells us they have neither\nbeginning nor end, but are co-eval with reason and intelligence; while\nevery thing besides has a derived, and a transitory existence, and passes\naway and decays, so as to cease in a short time to be the thing it was.\nWhatever, therefore, may be discussed by reason and method, should be\nconstantly reduced to the primary form or semblance of it's respective\ngenus.\n\nI am sensible that this introduction, as being derived not from the\nprinciples of Eloquence, but from the deepest recesses of Philosophy, will\nexcite the censure, or at least the wonder of many, who will think it both\nunfashionable and intricate. For they will either be at a loss to discover\nit's connection with my subject, (though they will soon be convinced by\nwhat follows, that, if it appears to be far-fetched, it is not so without\nreason;)--or they will blame me, perhaps, for deserting the beaten track,\nand striking out into a new one. But I am satisfied that I often appear to\nadvance novelties, when I offer sentiments which are, indeed, of a much\nearlier date, but happen to be generally unknown: and I frankly\nacknowledge that I came forth an Orator, (if indeed I am one, or whatever\nelse I may be deemed) not from the school of the Rhetoricians, but from\nthe spacious walks of the Academy. For these are the theatres of\ndiversified and extensive arguments which were first impressed with the\nfoot-steps of Plato; and his Dissertations, with those of other\nPhilosophers, will be found of the greatest utility to an Orator, both for\nhis exercise and improvement; because all the fertility, and, as it were,\nthe materials of Eloquence, are to be derived from thence;--but not,\nhowever, sufficiently prepared for the business of the Forum, which, as\nthemselves have frequently boasted, they abandoned to the _rustic Muses_\nof the vulgar! Thus the Eloquence of the Forum, despised and rejected by\nthe Philosophers, was bereaved of her greatest advantages:--but,\nnevertheless, being arrayed in all the brilliance of language and\nsentiment, she made a figure among the populace, nor feared the censure of\nthe judicious few. By this means, the learned became destitute of a\npopular Eloquence, and the Orators of polite learning.\n\nWe may, therefore, consider it as a capital maxim, (the truth of which\nwill be more easily understood in the sequel) that the eloquent Speaker we\nare enquiring after, cannot be formed without the assistance of\nPhilosophy. I do not mean that this alone is sufficient; but only (for it\nis sometimes necessary to compare great things to small) that it will\ncontribute to improve him in the same manner as the _Palaestra_ [Footnote:\nThe _Palaestra_ was a place set apart for public exercises, such as\nwrestling, running, fencing, &c. the frequent performance of which\ncontributed much to a graceful carriage of the body, which is a necessary\naccomplishment in a good Actor.] does an Actor; because without\nPhilosophy, no man can speak fully and copiously upon a variety of\nimportant subjects which come under the notice of an Orator. Accordingly,\nin the _Phaedrus_ of Plato, it is observed by Socrates that the great\n_Pericles_ excelled all the Speakers of his time, because he had been a\nhearer of _Anaxagoras_ the Naturalist, from whom he supposes that he not\nonly borrowed many excellent and sublime ideas, but a certain richness and\nfertility of language, and (what in Eloquence is of the utmost\nconsequence) the various arts either of soothing or alarming each\nparticular passion. The same might be said of _Demosthenes_, whose letters\nwill satisfy us, how assiduously he attended the Lectures of Plato. For\nwithout the instruction of Philosophy, we can neither discover what is the\n_Genus_ or the _Species_ to which any thing belongs, nor explain the\nnature of it by a just definition, or an accurate analysis of its parts;--\nnor can we distinguish between what is true and false, or foresee the\nconsequences, point out the inconsistencies, and dissolve the ambiguities\nwhich may lie in the case before us. But as to Natural Philosophy (the\nknowledge of which will supply us with the richest treasures of\nElocution;)--and as to life, and it's various duties, and the great\nprinciples of morality,--what is it possible either to express or\nunderstand aright, without a large acquaintance with these? To such\nvarious and important accomplishments we must add the innumerable\nornaments of language, which, at the time above mentioned, were the only\nweapons which the Masters of Rhetoric could furnish. This is the reason\nwhy that genuine, and perfect Eloquence we are speaking of, has been yet\nattained by no one; because the Art of _Reasoning_ has been supposed to be\none thing, and that of _Speaking_ another; and we have had recourse to\ndifferent Instructors for the knowledge of things and words.\n\nAntonius, [Footnote: A celebrated Orator, and grandfather to M. Antonius\nThe Triumvir.] therefore, to whom our ancestors adjudged the palm of\nEloquence, and who had much natural penetration and sagacity, has observed\nin the only book he published, \"_that he had seen many good Speakers, but\nnot a single Orator_.\" The full and perfect semblance of Eloquence had so\nthoroughly possessed his mind, and was so completely visible there, though\nno where exemplified in practice, that this consummate Genius, (for such,\nindeed, he was) observing many defects in both himself and others, could\ndiscover no one who merited the name of _eloquent_. But if he considered\nneither himself, nor Lucius Crassus, as a genuine Orator, he must have\nformed in his mind a sublime idea of Eloquence, under which, because there\nwas nothing wanting to compleat it, he could not comprehend those Speakers\nwho were any ways deficient. Let us then, my Brutus, (if we are able)\ntrace out the Orator whom Antonius never saw, and who, it may be, has\nnever yet existed; for though we have not the skill to copy his likeness\nin real practice, (a talk which, in the opinion of the person above-\nmentioned, would be almost too arduous for one of the Gods,) we may be\nable, perhaps, to give some account of what he _ought_ to be.\n\nGood Speaking, then, may be divided into three characters, in each of\nwhich there are some who have made an eminent figure: but to be equally\nexcellent in all (which is what we require) has been the happiness of few.\n\nThe _lofty_ and _majestic_ Speaker, who distinguishes himself by the\nenergy of his sentiments, and the dignity of his expression, is\nimpetuous,--diversified,--copious,--and weighty,--and abundantly qualified\nto alarm and sway the passions;--which some effect by a harsh, and a\nrough, gloomy way of speaking, without any harmony or measure; and others,\nby a smooth, a regular, and a well-proportioned style.\n\nOn the other hand, the _simple_ and _easy_ Speaker is remarkably dexterous\nand keen, and aiming at nothing but our information, makes every thing he\ndiscourses upon, rather clear and open than great and striking, and\npolishes it with the utmost neatness and accuracy. But some of this kind\nof Speakers, who are distinguished by their peculiar artificie, are\ndesignedly unpolished, and appear rude and unskilful, that they may have\nthe better opportunity of deceiving us:--while others, with the same\npoverty of style, are far more elegant and agreeable,--that is, they are\npleasant and facetious, and sometimes even florid, with here and there an\neasy ornament.\n\nBut there is likewise a _middle_ kind of Oratory, between the two above-\nmentioned, which neither has the keenness of the latter, nor hurls the\nthunder of the former; but is a mixture of both, without excelling in\neither, though at the same time it has something of each, or (perhaps,\nmore properly) is equally destitute of the true merit of both. This\nspecies of Eloquence flows along in a uniform course, having nothing to\nrecommend it, but it's peculiar smoothness and equability; though at the\nsame time, it intermingles a number of decorations, like the tufts of\nflowers in a garland, and embellishes a discourse from beginning to end\nwith the moderate and less striking ornaments of language and sentiment.\n\nThose who have attained to any degree of perfection in either of the above\ncharacters, have been distinguished as eminent Orators: but the question\nis whether any of them have compassed what we are seeking after, and\nsucceeded equally in all. For there have been several who could speak\nnervously and pompously, and yet, upon occasion, could express themselves\nwith the greates address, and simplicity. I wish I could refer to such an\nOrator, or at least to one who nearly resembles him, among the Romans; for\nit would certainly have been more to our credit to be able to refer to\nproper examples of our own, and not be necessitated to have recourse to\nthe Greeks. But though in another treatis of mine, which bears the name of\n_Brutus_, [Footnote: A very excellent Treatise in the form of a Dialogue.\nIt contains a critical and very instructive account of all the noted\nOrators of _Greece_ and _Rome_ and might be called, with great propriety,\n_the History of Eloquence_. Though it is perhaps the most entertaining of\nall Cicero's performances, the Public have never been obliged before with\na translation of it into English; which, I hope, will sufficiently plead\nmy excuse for preforming to undertake it.] I have said much in favour of\nthe Romans, partly to excite their emulation, and, in some measure, from a\npartial fondness for my country; yet I must always remember to give the\npreference to _Demosthenes_, who alone has adapted his genius to that\nperfect species of Eloquence of which I can readily form an idea, but\nwhich I have never yet seen exemplified in practice. Than _him_, there has\nnever hitherto existed a more nervous, and at the same time, a more subtle\nSpeaker, or one more cool and temperate. I must, therefore, caution those\nwhose ignorant discourse is become so common, and who wish to pass for\n_Attic_ Speakers, or at least to express themselves in the _Attic_ taste,\n--I must caution them to take _him_ for their pattern, than whom it is\nimpossible that Athens herself should be more completely Attic: and, as to\ngenuine Atticism, that them learn what it means, and measure the force of\nEloquence, not by their own weakness and incapacity, but by his wonderful\nenergy and strength. For, at present, a person bestows his commendation\nupon just so much as he thinks himself capable of imitating. I therefore\nflatter myself that it will not be foreign to my purpose, to instruct\nthose who have a laudable emulation, but are not thoroughly settled in\ntheir judgment, wherein the merit of an Attic Orator consists.\n\nThe taste of the Audience, then, has always governed and directed the\nEloquence of the Speaker: for all who wish to be applauded, consult the\ncharacter, and the inclinations of those who hear them, and carefully form\nand accommodate themselves to their particular humours and dispositions.\nThus in Caria, Phrygia, and Mysia, because the inhabitants have no relish\nfor true elegance and politeness, the Orators have adopted (as most\nagreeable to the ears of their audience) a luxuriant, and, if I may so\nexpress myself, a corpulent style; which their neighbours the Rhodians,\nwho are only parted from them by a narrow straight, have never approved,\nand much less the Greeks; but the Athenians have entirely banished it; for\ntheir taste has always been so just and accurate that they could not\nlisten to any thing but what was perfectly correct and elegant. An Orator,\ntherefore, to compliment their delicacy, was forced to be always upon his\nguard against a faulty or a distasteful expression.\n\nAccordingly, _he_, whom we have just mentioned as surpassing the rest, has\nbeen careful in his Oration for Ctesiphon, (which is the best he ever\ncomposed) to set out very cooly and modestly: when he proceeds to argue\nthe point of law, he grows more poignant and pressing; and as he advances\nin his defence, he takes still greater liberties; till, at last, having\nwarmed the passions of his Judges, he exults at his pleasure through the\nreamining part of his discourse. But even in _him_, thus carefully\nweighing and poising his every word _Aeschines_ [Footnote: _Aeschines_ was\na cotemporary, and a professed rival of Demosthenes. He carried his\nanimosity so far as to commence a litigious suit against him, at a time\nwhen the reputation of the latter was at the lowest ebb. But being\noverpowered by the Eloquence of Demosthenes, he was condemned to perpetual\nbanishment.] could find several expressions to turn into ridicule:--for\ngiving a loose to his raillery, he calls them harsh, and detestable, and\ntoo shocking to be endured; and styling the author of them a very\n_monster_, he tauntingly asks him whether such expressions could be\nconsidered as _words_ or not rather as absolute _frights_ and _prodigies_.\nSo that to AEschines not even _Demosthenes_ himself was perfectly _Attic_;\nfor it is an easy matter to catch a _glowing_ expression, (if I may be\nallowed to call it so) and expose it to ridicule when the fire of\nattention is extinguished. Demosthenes, therefore, when he endeavours to\nexcuse himself, condescends to jest, and denies that the fortune of Greece\nwas in the least affected by the singularity of a particular expression,\nor by his moving his hand either this way or that.\n\nWith what patience, then, would a Mysian or a Phrygian have been heard at\nAthens, when even Demosthenes himself was reproached as a nuisance? But\nshould the former have begun his whining sing-song, after the manner of\nthe Asiatics, who would have endured it? or rather, who would not have\nordered him to be instantly torn from the Rostrum? Those, therefore, who\ncan accommodate themselves to the nice and critical ears of an Athenian\naudience, are the only persons who should pretend to Atticism.\n\nBut though Atticism may be divided into several kinds, these mimic\nAthenians suspect but one. They imagine that to discourse plainly, and\nwithout any ornament, provided it be done correctly, and clearly, is the\nonly genuine Atticism. In confining it to this alone, they are certainly\nmistaken; though when they tell us that this is really Attic, they are so\nfar in the right. For if the only true Atticism is what they suppose to\nbe, not even _Pericles_ was an Attic Speaker, though he was universally\nallowed to bear away the palm of Eloquence; nor, if he had wholly attached\nhimself to this plain and simple kind of language, would he ever have been\nsaid by the Poet Aristophanes _to thunder and lighten, and throw all\nGreece into a ferment_.\n\nBe it allowed, then, that Lysias, that graceful and most polite of\nSpeakers, was truly Attic: for who can deny it? But let it also be\nremembered that Lysias claims the merit of Atticism, not so much for his\nsimplicity and want of ornament, as because he has nothing which is either\nfaulty or impertinent. But to speak floridly, nervously, and copiously,\nthis also is true Atticism:--otherwise, neither Aeschines nor even\nDemosthenes himself were Attic Speakers.\n\nThere are others who affect to be called _Thucydideans_,--a strange and\nnovel race of Triflers! For those who attach themselves to Lysias, have a\nreal Pleader for their pattern;--not indeed a stately, and striking\nPleader, but yet a dextrous and very elegant one, who might appear in the\nForum with reputation.\n\nThucydides, on the contrary, is a mere Historian, who ('tis true)\ndescribes wars, and battles with great dignity and precision; but he can\nsupply us with nothing which is proper for the Forum. For his very\nspeeches have so many obscure and intricate periods, that they are\nscarcely intelligible; which in a public discourse is the greatest fault\nof which an Orator can be guilty. But who, when the use of corn has been\ndiscovered, would be so mad as to feed upon acorns? Or could the Athenians\nimprove their diet, and bodily food, and be incapable of cultivating their\nlanguage? Or, lastly, which of the Greek Orators has copied the style of\nThucydides? [Footnote: Demosthenes indeed took the pains to transcribe the\nHistory of Thucydides several times. But he did this, no so much to copy\nthe _form_ as the energy of his language.] \"True,\" they reply, \"but\nThucydides was universally admired.\" And so, indeed, he was; but only as a\nsensible, an exact, and a grave Historian;--not for his address in public\ndebates, but for his excellence in describing wars and battles.\nAccordingly, he was never mentioned as an Orator; nor would his name have\nbeen known to posterity, if he had not composed his History,\nnotwithstanding the dignity of his birth, and the honourable share he held\nin the Government. But none of these Pretenders have copied his energy;\nand yet when they have uttered a few mutilated and broken periods (which\nthey might easily have done without a master to imitate) we must rever\nthem, truly, as so many genuine _Thucydideses_. I have likewise met with a\nfew who were professed imitators of Xenophon; whose language, indeed, is\nsweeter than honey, but totally unqualified to withstand the clamours of\nthe Forum.\n\nLet us return then to the Orator we are seeking after, and furnish him\nwith those powers of Elocution, which Antonius could not discover in any\none: an arduous task, my Brutus, and full of difficulty:--yet nothing, I\nbelieve, is impossible to him whose breast is fired with the generous\nflame of friendship! But I affectionately admire (and have always admired)\nyour genius, your inclinations, and your manners. Nay, I am daily more\ninflamed and ravished, not only with a desire (which, I assure you, is a\nviolent one) to renew our friendly intercourses, our social repasts, and\nyour improving conversation, but by the wonderful fame of your incredible\nvirtues, which, though different in kind, are readily united by your\nsuperior wisdom and good-sense. For what is so remote from severity of\nmanners as gentleness and affability? and yet who more venerable than\nyourself, or who more agreeable? What can be more difficult than to decide\na number of suits, so as to be equally esteemed and beloved by the parties\non both sides? You, however, possess the admirable talent of sending away\nperfectly easy and contented even those against whom your are forced to\ngive judgment: thus bringing it to bear that, while you do nothing from a\npartial favour to any man, whatever you do is favourably received. Hence\nit happens, that the only country upon earth, which is not involved in the\npresent confusion, is the province of Gaul; where you are now enjoying\nyourself in a happy tranquillity, while you are universally respected at\nhome, and live in the hearts of the flower and strength of your fellow-\ncitizens. It is equally amazing, though you are always engaged in the most\nimportant offices of Government, that your studies are never intermitted;\nand that you are constantly either composing something of your own, or\nfinding employment for me! Accordingly I began this Essay, at your\nrequest, as soon as I had finished my _Cato_; which last also I should\nnever have attempted (especially at a time when the enemies of virtue were\nso numerous) if I had not considered it as a crime to disobey my friend,\nwhen he only urged me to revive the memory of a man whom I always loved\nand honoured in his life-time. But I have now ventured upon a task which\nyou have frequently pressed upon me, and I as often refused: for, if\npossible, I would share the fault between us, that if I should prove\nunequal to the subject, you may have the blame of loading me with a burden\nwhich is beyond my strength, and I the censure of presuming to undertake\nit:--though after all, the single merit of gratifying such a friend as\nBrutus, will sufficiently atone for any defects I may fall into.\n\nBut in every accomplishment which may become the object of pursuit, it is\nexcessively difficult to delineate the form (or, as the Greeks call it,\nthe _character_ [Footnote: [Greek: charachtaer].]) of what is _best_;\nbecause some suppose it to consist in one thing, and some in another.\nThus, for instance, \"I am for _Ennius_,\" says one; \"because he confines\nhimself to the style of conversation:\"--\"and I,\" says another, \"give the\npreference to _Pacuvius_, because his verses are embellished and well-\nwrought; whereas Ennius is rather too \"negligent.\" In the same manner we\nmay suppose a third to be an admirer of Attius; for, as among the Greeks,\nso it happens with us, \"_different men have different opinions_;\"--nor is\nit easy to determine which is best. Thus also in painting, some are\npleased with a rough, a wild, and a dark and cloudy style; while others\nprefer that which is clear, and lively, and well covered with light. How\nthen shall we strike out a general _rule_ or _model_, when there are\nseveral manners, and each of them has a certain perfection of its own? But\nthis difficulty has not deterred me from the undertaking; nor have I\naltered my opinion that in all things there is a _something_ which\ncomprehends the highest excellence of the kind, and which, though not\ngenerally discernible, is sufficiently conspicuous to him, who is skilled\nin the subject.\n\n\"But as there are several kinds of Eloquence which differ considerably\nfrom each other, and therefore cannot be reduced to one common form;--for\nthis reason, as to mere laudatory Orations, Essays, Histories, and such\nsuasory performances as the Panegyric of Isocrates, and the speeches of\nmany others who were called _Sophists_;--and, in short, as to every thing\nwhich is unconnected with the Forum, and the whole of that species of\ndiscourse which the Greeks call the _demonstrative_ [Footnote: The\n_demonstrative_ species of Eloquence is that which was solely employed\neither in _praising_ or _dispraising_. Besides this, there are two\nothers, viz. the _deliberative_, and the _judicial_; the former was\nemployed in political debates, where it's whole business was either\nto _persuade_ or _dissuade_; and the latter, in judicial suits and\ncontroversies, where the Speaker was either to _accuse_ or _defend_.\nBut, on many occasions, they were all three intermingled in the same\ndiscourse.];--the form, or leading character of these I shall pass over;\nthough I am far from considering it as a mere trifle, or a subject of\nno consequence; on the contrary, we may regard it as the nurse and\ntutoress of the Orator we are now delineating. For _here_, a fluency\nof expression is confessedly nourished and cultivated; and the easy\nconstruction, and harmonious cadence of our language is more openly\nattended to. _Here_, likewise, we both allow and recommend a studious\nelegance of diction, and a continued flow of melodious and well-turned\nperiods;--and _here_, we may labour visibly, and without concealing\nour art, to contrast word to word, and to compare similar, and oppose\ncontrary circumstances, and make several sentences (or parts of a\nsentence) conclude alike, and terminate with the same cadence;\n--ornaments, which in real pleadings, are to be used more sparingly, and\nwith less appearance of art. Isocrates, therefore, confesses in his\n_Panathenaicus_, that these were beauties which he industriously pursued;\nfor he composed it not for victory in a suit at law (where such a\nconfession must have greatly injured his cause) but merely to gratify the\near.\n\n\"It is recorded that the first persons who practised this species of\ncomposition [Footnote: The _composition_ here mentioned consisted of three\nparts, The _first_ regarded the structure; that is, the _connection_ of\nour words, and required that the last syllable of every preceding, and the\nfirst of every succeeding word should be so aptly united as to produce an\nagreeable sound; which was effected by avoiding a collision of vowels or\nof inamicable consonants. It likewise required that those words should be\nconstantly made choice of, whose separate sounds were most harmonious and\nmost agreeable to the sense. The _second_ part consisted in the use of\nparticular forms of expression, such as contrasts and antithesises, which\nhave an appearance of order and regularity in their very texture. The\n_third_ and last regarded that species of harmony which results not so\nmuch from the sound, as from the time and quantity of the several\nsyllables in a sentence. This was called _number_, and sometimes _rhyme_;\nand was in fact a kind of _prosaic metre_, which was carefully attended to\nby the ancients in every part of a sentence, but more particularly at the\nbeginning and end of it. In this part they usually included the _period_,\nor the rules for determining the length of their sentences. I thought it\nnecessary to give this short account of their composition, because our\nauthor very frequently alludes to it, before he proceeds to explain it at\nlarge.] were _Thrasymachus_ the Chalcedonian, and _Gorgias_ the Leontine;\nand that these were followed by _Theodorus_ the Byzantine, and a number of\nothers, whom Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, calls [Greek:\nlogodaidalos] _Speech-wrights_; many of whole discourses are sufficiently\nneat and entertaining; but, being the first attempts of the kind, were too\nminute and puerile, and had too poetical an air, and too much colouring.\nOn this account, the merit of _Herodotus_, and _Thucydides_ is the more\nconspicuous: for though they lived at the time we are speaking of, they\ncarefully avoided those studied decorations, or rather futilities. The\nformer rolls along like a deep, still river without any rocks or shoals to\ninterrupt it's course; and the other describes wars and battles, as if he\nwas founding a charge on the trumpet; so that history (to use the words\nof _Theophrastus_) caught the first alarm from these, and began to express\nherself with greater dignity and spirit.\n\n\"After these came _Socrates_, whom I have always recommended as the most\naccomplished writer we have in the way I am speaking of; though sometimes,\nmy Brutus, you have objected to it with a great deal of pleasantry and\nerudition. But when you are better informed for what it is I recommend\nhim, you will then think of him perhaps as favourably as I do.\nThrasymachus and Gorgias (who are said to have been the first who\ncultivated the art of prosaic harmony) appeared to him to be too minutely\nexact; and Thucydides, he thought, was as much too loose and rugged, and\nnot sufficiently smooth, and full-mouthed; and from hence he took the hint\nto give a scope to his sentences by a more copious and unconfined flow of\nlanguage, and to fill up their breaks and intervals with the softer and\nmore agreeable numbers. By teaching this to the most celebrated Speakers,\nand Composers of the age, his house came at last to be honoured as the\n_School of Eloquence_. Wherefore as I bore the censure of others with\nindifference, when I had the good fortune to be applauded by Cato; thus\nIsocrates, with the approbation of Plato, may slight the judgment of\ninferior critics. For in the last page of the Phaedrus, we find _Socrates_\nthus expressing himself;--'Now, indeed, my dear Phaedrus,' said he,\n'Isocrates is but a youth: but I will discover to you what I think of\nhim.'--'And what is that?' replied the other.--'He appears to me,' said\nthe Philosopher, 'to have too elevated a genius to be placed on a level\nwith the arid speeches of Lysias. Besides, he has a stronger turn for\nvirtue; so that I shall not wonder, as he advances in years, if in the\nspecies of Eloquence to which he now applies himself, he should exceed\nall, who have hitherto pursued it, like so many infants. Or, if this\nshould not content him, I shall not be astonished to behold him with a\ngodlike ardour pursuing higher and more important studies; for I plainly\nsee that he has a natural bent to Philosophy!'\"\n\nThus Socrates presaged of him when he was but a youth. But Plato recorded\nthis eulogium when he was older; and he recorded it, though he was one of\nhis equals and cotemporaries, and a professed enemy to the whole tribe of\nRhetoricians! _Him_ he admires, and _him_ alone! So that such who despise\nIsocrates, must suffer me to err with Socrates and Plato.\n\nThe manner of speaking, then, which is observed in the _demonstrative_ or\nornamental species of Eloquence, and which I have before remarked, was\npeculiar to the Sophists, is sweet, harmonious, and flowing, full of\npointed sentiments, and arrayed in all the brilliance of language. But it\nis much fitter for the parade than the field; and being, therefore,\nconsigned to the Palaestra, and the schools, has been long banished from\nthe Forum. As Eloquence, however, after she had been fed and nourished\nwith this, acquires a fresher complexion, and a firmer constitution; it\nwould not be amiss, I thought, to trace our Orator from his very _cradle_.\n\nBut these things are only for shew and amusement: whereas it is our\nbusiness to take the field in earnest, and prepare for action. As there\nare three particulars, then, to be attended to by an Orator,--viz. _what_\nhe is to say, in _what order_, and _how_; we shall consider what is most\nexcellent in each; but after a different manner from what is followed in\ndelivering a system of the Art. For we are not to furnish a set of\nprecepts (this not being the province we have undertaken) but to exhibit a\nportrait of Eloquence in her full perfection: neither is it our business\nto explain the methods by which we may acquire it, but only to shew what\nopinion we ought to form of it.\n\nThe two first articles are to be lightly touched over; for they have not\nso much a remarkable as a necessary share in forming the character of a\ncompleat Orator, and are likewise common to _his_ with many other\nprofessions;--and though, to invent, and judge with accuracy, what is\nproper to be said, are important accomplishments, and the same as the soul\nis to the body, yet they rather belong to _prudence_ than to Eloquence. In\nwhat cause, however, can _prudence_ be idle? Our Orator, therefore, who is\nto be all perfection, should be thoroughly acquainted with the sources of\nargument and proof. For as every thing which can become the subject of\ndebate, must rest upon one or another of these particulars, viz.--whether\na fact has been really committed, or what name it ought to bear in law, or\nwhether it is agreeable or contrary to justice; and as the reality of a\nfact must be determined by force of evidence, the true name of it by it's\ndefinition, and the quality of it by the received notions of right and\nwrong;--an Orator (not an ordinary one, but the finished Speaker we are\ndescribing) will always turn off the controversy, as much as possible,\nfrom particular persons and times, (for we may argue more at liberty\nconcerning general topics than about circumstances) in such a manner that\nwhat is proved to be true _universally_, may necessarily appear to be so\nin all _subordinate_ cases. The point in debate being thus abstracted from\nparticular persons and times, and brought to rest upon general principles,\nis called a _thesis_. In _this_ the famous Aristotle carefully practised\nhis scholars;--not to argue with the formal precision of Philosophers, but\nto canvass a point handsomely and readily on both sides, and with all the\ncopiousness so much admired in the Rhetoricians: and for this purpose he\ndelivered a set of _common places_ (for so he calls them) which were to\nserve as so many marks or characters for the discovery of arguments, and\nfrom which a discourse might be aptly framed on either side of a question.\n\nOur Orator then, (for I am not speaking of a mere school-declaimer, or a\nnoisy ranter in the Forum, but of a well-accomplished and a finished\nSpeaker)--our Orator, as there is such a copious variety of common-places,\nwill examine them all, and employ those which suit his purpose in as\ngeneral and indefinite a manner as his cause will permit, and carefully\ntrace and investigate them to their inmost sources. But he will use the\nplenty before him with discretion, and weighing every thing with the\nutmost accuracy, select what is best: for the stress of an argument does\nnot always, and in every cause, depend upon similar topics. He will,\ntherefore, exercise his judgment; and not only discover what _may_ be\nsaid, but thoroughly examine the _force_ of it. For nothing is more\nfertile than the powers of genius, and especially those which have been\nblessed with the cultivation of science. But as a rich and fruitful soil\nnot only produces corn in abundance, but also weeds to choak and smother\nit; so from the common-places we are speaking of, many arguments will\narise, which are either trivial, or foreign to our purpose, or entirely\nuseless. An Orator, therefore, should carefully examine each, that he may\nbe able to select with propriety. Otherwise, how can he enlarge upon those\nwhich are most pertinent, and dwell upon such as more particularly affect\nhis cause? Or how can he soften a harsh circumstance, or conceal, and (if\npossible) entirely suppress what would be deemed unanswerable, or steal\noff the attention of the hearer to a different topic? Or how alledge\nanother argument in reply, which shall be still more plausible than that\nof his antagonist?\n\nBut after he has thus _invented_ what is proper to be said, with what\naccuracy must he _methodize_ it? For this is the second of the three\narticles above-mentioned. Accordingly, he will give the portal of his\nHarangue a graceful appearance, and make the entrance to his cause as neat\nand splendid as the importance of it will permit. When he has thus made\nhimself master of the hearer's good wishes at the first onset, he will\nendeavour to invalidate what makes against him; and having, by this means,\ncleared his way, his strongest arguments will appear some of them in the\nfront, and others at the close of his discourse; and as to those of more\ntrifling consequence, he will occasionally introduce [Footnote: In the\nOriginal it is _inculcabit_, he will _tread them in_, (like the sand or\nloose dust in a new pavement) to support and strengthen the whole.] them\nhere and there, where he judges them likely to be most serviceable. Thus,\nthen, we have given a cursory view of what he ought to be, in the two\nfirst departments of Oratory. But, as we before observed, these, though\nvery important in their consequences, require less art and application.\n\nAfter he has thus invented what is proper to be said, and in what order,\nthe greatest difficulty is still behind;--namely to consider _how_ he is\nto say it, and _in what manner_. For the observation of our favourite\n_Carneades_ is well-known,--\"That _Clitomachus_ had a perpetual sameness\nof sentiment, and Charmidas a tiresome uniformity of expression.\" But if\nit is a circumstance of so much moment in Philosophy, _in what manner_ we\nexpress ourselves, where the matter, and not the language, is principally\nregarded; what must we think of public debates, which are wholly ruled and\nswayed by the powers of Elocution? Accordingly, my Brutus, I am sensible\nfrom your letters, that you mean to inquire what are my notions of a\nfinished Speaker, not so much with respect to his Invention and\nDisposition, as to his talents of _Elocution_:--a severe task! and the\nmost difficult you could have fixed upon! For as language is ever soft and\nyielding, and so amazingly pliable that you may bend and form it at your\npleasure; so different natures and dispositions have given rise to\ndifferent kinds of Elocution. Some, for instance, who place the chief\nmerit of it in it's rapidity, are mightily pleased with a torrent of\nwords, and a volubility of expression. Others again are better pleased\nwith regular, and measured intervals, and frequent stops, and pauses. What\ncan be more opposite? and yet both have their proper excellence. Some also\nconfine their attention to the smoothness and equability of their periods,\nand aim at a style which is perfectly neat and clear: while others affect\na harshness, and severity of diction, and to give a gloomy cast to their\nlanguage:--and as we have already observed that some endeavour to be\nnervous and majestic, others neat and simple, and some to be smooth and\nflorid, it necessarily follows that there must be as many different kinds\nof Orators, as there are of Eloquence. But as I have already enlarged the\ntalk you have imposed upon me;--(for though your enquiries related only to\nElocution, I have ventured a few hints on the arts of Invention and\nDisposition;)--I shall now treat not only of _Elocution_, but of _action_.\nBy this means, every part of Oratory will be attended to: for as to\n_memory_, which is common to this with many other arts, it is entirely out\nof the question.\n\nThe Art of Speaking then, so far as it regards only the _manner_ in which\nour thoughts should be expressed, consists in _action_ and _Elocution_;\nfor action is the Eloquence of the body, and implies the proper management\nof our _voice_ and _gesture_. As to the inflexions of the voice, they are\nas numerous as the various passions it is capable of exciting. The\nfinished Orator, therefore, who is the subject of this Essay, in whatever\nmanner he would appear to be affected himself, and touch the heart of his\nhearer, will employ a suitable and corresponding tone of voice:--a topic\nwhich I could willingly enlarge upon, if delivering precepts was any part\nof my present design, or of your request. I should likewise have treated\nconcerning _gesture_, of which the management of the countenance is a\nmaterial part: for it is scarcely credible of what great importance it is\nto an Orator to recommend himself by these external accomplishments. For\neven those who were far from being masters of good language, have many\ntimes, by the sole dignity of their action, reaped the fruits of\nEloquence; while others who had the finest powers of Elocution, have too\noften, by the mere awkwardness of their delivery, led people to imagine\nthat they were scarcely able to express themselves:--so that Demosthenes,\nwith sufficient reason, assigned the first place, and likewise the second\nand third to _pronunciation_. For if Eloquence without this is nothing,\nbut this, even without Eloquence, has such a wonderful efficacy, it must\nbe allowed to bear the principal sway in the practice of Speaking.\n\nIf an Orator, then, who is ambitious to win the palm of Eloquence, has any\nthing to deliver which is warm and cutting, let his voice be strong and\nquick;--if what is calm and gentle, let it be mild and easy;--if what is\ngrave and sedate, let it be cool and settled;--and if what is mournful and\naffecting, let his accents be plaintive and flexible. For the voice may be\nraised or depressed, and extended or contracted to an astonishing degree;\nthus in Music (for instance) it's three tones, the _mean_, the _acute_,\nand the _grave_, may be so managed by art, as to produce a pleasing and an\ninfinite variety of sounds. Nay, even in Speaking, there may be a\nconcealed kind of music:--not like the whining epilogue of a Phrygian or a\nCarian declaimer, but such as was intended by _Aeschines_, and\n_Demosthenes_, when the one upbraids and reproaches the other with the\nartificial modulations of his voice. _Demosthenes_, however, says most\nupon this head, and often speaks of his accuser as having a sweet and\nclear pronunciation. There is another circumstance, which may farther\nenforce our attention to the agreeable management of the voice; for Nature\nherself, as if she meant to harmonize the speech of man, has placed an\naccent on every word, and one accent only, which never lies farther than\nthe third syllable from the last. Why, therefore, should we hesitate to\nfollow her example, and to do our best to gratify the ear? A good voice,\nindeed, though a desirable accomplishment, is not in our power to\nacquire:--but to exercise, and improve it, is certainly in the power of\nevery person.\n\nThe Orator, then, who means to be the prince of his profession, will\nchange and vary his voice with the most delicate propriety; and by\nsometimes raising, and sometimes depressing it, pursue it gradually\nthrough all it's different tones, and modulations. He will likewise\nregulate his _gesture_, so as to avoid even a single motion which is\neither superfluous or impertinent. His posture will be erect and manly:--\nhe will move from his ground but seldom, and not even then too\nprecipitately; and his advances will be few and moderate. He will practise\nno languishing, no effeminate airs of the head, no finical playing of the\nfingers, no measured movement of the joints. The chief part of his gesture\nwill consist in the firm and graceful sway of his body, and in extending\nhis arm when his arguments are pressing, and drawing it again when his\nvehemence abates. But as to the _countenance_, which next to the voice has\nthe greatest efficacy, what dignity and gracefulness is it not capable of\nsupporting! and when you have been careful that it may neither be\nunmeaning, nor ostentatious, there is still much to be left to the\nexpression of the _eyes_. For if the countenance is the _image_ of the\nmind, the eyes are it's _interpreters_, whose degree of pleasantry or\nsadness must be proportioned to the importance of our subject.\n\nBut we are to exhibit the portrait of a finished Orator, whose chief\nexcellence must be supposed, from his very name, to consist in his\n_Elocution_; while his other qualifications (though equally complete) are\nless conspicuous. For a mere inventor, a mere digester, or a mere actor,\nare titles never made use of to comprize the whole character; but an\nOrator derives his name, both in Greek and Latin, from the single talent\nof Elocution. As to his other qualifications, every man of sense may claim\na share of them: but the full powers of language are exerted by himself\nalone. Some of the philosophers, indeed, have expressed themselves in a\nvery handsome manner: for _Theophrastus_ derived his name from the\ndivinity of his style; _Aristotle_ rivalled the glory of _Isocrates_; and\nthe Muses themselves are said to have spoken from the lips of _Xenophon_;\nand, to say no more, the great _Plato_ is acknowledged in majesty and\nsweetness to have far exceeded all who ever wrote or spoke. But their\nlanguage has neither the nerves nor the sting which is required in the\nOrator's, when he harangues the crowded Forum. They speak only to the\nlearned, whose passions they rather choose to compose than disturb; and\nthey discourse about matters of calm and untumultuous speculation, merely\nas teachers, and not like eager antagonists: though even _here_, when they\nendeavour to amuse and delight us, they are thought by some to exceed the\nlimits of their province. It will be easy, therefore, to distinguish this\nspecies of Elocution from the Eloquence we are attempting to delineate.\nFor the language of philosophy is gentle and composed, and entirely\ncalculated for the shady walks of the Academy;--not armed with those\nforcible sentiments, and rapid turns of expression, which are suited to\nmove the populace, nor measured by exact numbers and regular periods, but\neasy, free, and unconfined. It has nothing resentful belonging to it,\nnothing invidious, nothing fierce and flaming, nothing exaggerated,\nnothing marvellous, nothing artful and designing; but resembles a chaste,\na bashful, and an unpolluted virgin. We may, therefore, consider it as a\nkind of polite conversation, rather than a species of Oratory.\n\nAs to the _Sophists_, whom I have already mentioned, the resemblance ought\nto be more accurately distinguished: for they industriously pursue the\nsame flowers which are used by an Orator in the Forum. But they differ in\nthis,--that, as their principal aim is not to disturb the passions, but\nrather to allay them, and not so much to persuade as to please,--they\nattempt the latter more openly, and more frequently than we do. They seek\nfor agreeable sentiments, rather than probable ones; they use more\nfrequent digressions, intermingle tales and fables, employ more shewy\nmetaphors, and work them into their discourses with as much fancy and\nvariety as a painter does his colours; and they abound in contrasts and\nantitheses, and in similar and corresponding cadences.\n\nNearly allied to these is _History_, which conducts her narratives with\nelegance and ease, and now and then sketches out a country, or a battle.\nShe likewise diversifies her story with short speeches, and florid\nharangues: but in these, only neatness and fluency is to be expected, and\nnot the vehemence and poignant severity of an Orator [Footnote: In the\nOriginal it is,--_sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens expetitur, nan haec\ncontorta, et acris Oratorio_; upon which Dr. Ward has made the following\nremark:--\"Sentences, with respect to their form or composition, are\ndistinguished into two sorts, called by Cicero _tracta_, strait or direct,\nand _contorta_, bent or winding. By the former are meant such, whose\nmembers follow each other in a direct order, without any inflexion; and by\nthe latter, those which strictly speaking are called periods.\"].\n\nThere is much the same difference between Eloquence and _Poetry_; for the\nPoets likewise have started the question, What it is which distinguishes\nthem from the Orators? It was formerly supposed to be their _number_ and\n_metre_: but numbers are now as familiar to the Orator, as to the Poet;\nfor whatever falls under the regulation of the ear, though it bears no\nresemblance to verse (which in Oratory would be a capital fault) is called\n_number_, and by the Greeks _rhyme_. [Footnote: [Greek: Ruthmos]] In the\nopinion of some, therefore, the style of _Plato_ and _Democritus_, on\naccount of it's majestic flow, and the splendor of it's ornaments, though\nit is far from being verse, has a nearer resemblance to poetry than the\nstyle of the Comedians, who, excepting their metre, have nothing different\nfrom the style of conversation. Metre, however, is far from being the\nprincipal merit of the Poets; though it is certainly no small\nrecommendation, that, while they pursue all the beauties of Eloquence, the\nharmony of their numbers is far more regular and exact. But, though the\nlanguage of Poetry is equally grand and ornamental with that of an Orator,\nshe undoubtedly takes greater liberties both in making and compounding\nword; and frequently administers to the pleasure of her hearers, more by\nthe pomp and lustre of her expressions, than by the weight and dignity of\nher sentiments. Though judgment, therefore, and a proper choice of words,\nis alike common to both, yet their difference in other respects is\nsufficiently discernible: but if it affords any matter of doubt (as to\nsome, perhaps, it may) the discussion of it is no way necessary to our\npresent purpose.\n\nWe are, therefore, to delineate the Orator who differs equally from the\nEloquence of the Philosopher, the Sophist, the Historian, and the Poet.\nHe, then, is truly eloquent, (for after _him_ we must search, by the\ndirection of Antonius) who in the Forum, and in public debates, can so\nspeak, as to _prove_, _delight_, and _force the passions_. To _prove_, is\na matter of necessity:--to _delight_, is indispensably requisite to engage\nthe attention:--and to _force the passions_, is the surest means of\nvictory; for this contributes more effectually than both the others to get\na cause decided to our wishes. But as the duties of an Orator, so the\nkinds of Elocution are three. The neat and accurate is used in _proving;_\nthe moderately florid in _delighting_ apd the vehement and impetuous in\n_forcing_ _the passions,_ in which alone all the power of Eloquence\nconsists. Great, therefore, must be the judgment, and wonderful the\ntalents of the man, who can properly conduct, and, as it were, temper this\nthreefold variety: for he will at once determine what is suitable to every\ncase; and be always able to express himself as the nature of his subject\nmay require.\n\nDiscretion, therefore, is the basis of Eloquence, as well as of every\nother accomplishment. For, as in the conduct of life, so in the practice\nof Speaking, nothing is more difficult than to maintain a propriety of\ncharacter. This is called by the Greeks [Greek: to prepon], _the\nbecoming,_ but we shall call it _decorum;_--a subject which has been\nexcellently and very copiously canvassed, and richly merits our attention.\nAn unacquaintance with this has been the source of innumerable errors, not\nonly in the business of life, but in Poetry and Eloquence. An Orator,\ntherefore, should examine what is becoming, as well in the turn of his\nlanguage, as in that of his sentiments. For not every condition, not every\nrank, not every character, nor every age, or place, or time, nor every\nhearer is to be treated with the same invariable train either of sentiment\nor expression:--but we should always consider in every part of a public\nOration, as well as of life, what will be most becoming,--a circumstance\nwhich naturally depends on the nature of the subject, and the respective\ncharacters of the Speaker and Hearer. Philosophers, therefore, have\ncarefully discussed this extensive and important topic in the doctrine of\nEthics, (though not, indeed, when they treat of right and wrong, because\nthose are invariably the fame:)--nor is it less attended to by the Critics\nin their poetical Essays, or by men of Eloquence in every species and\nevery part of their public debates. For what would be more out of\ncharacter, than to use a lofty style, and ransack every topic of argument,\nwhen we are speaking only of a petty trespass in some inferior court? Or,\non the other hand, to descend to any puerile subtilties, and speak with\nthe indifference and simplicity of a frivolous narrative, when we are\nlashing treason and rebellion?\n\n_Here_, the indecorum would arise from the very nature and quality of the\nsubject: but others are equally guilty of it, by not adapting their\ndiscourse either to their own characters, or to that of their hearers,\nand, in some cafes, to that of their antagonists; and they extend the\nfault not only to their sentiments, but to the turn of their expression.\nIt is true, indeed, that the force of language is a mere nothing, when it\nis not supported by a proper solidity of sentiment: but it is also equally\ntrue that the same thing will be either approved or rejected, according as\nit is this or that way expressed. In all cases, therefore, we cannot be\ntoo careful in examining the _how far_? for though every thing has it's\nproper mean, yet an _excess_ is always more offensive and disgusting than\na proportionable _defect_. _Apelles_, therefore, justly censures some of\nhis cotemporary artists, because they never knew when they had performed\nenough.\n\nThis, my Brutus, as your long acquaintance with it must necessarily inform\nyou, is a copious subject, and would require an extensive volume to\ndiscuss. But it is sufficient to our present purpose to observe, that in\nall our words and actions, as well the smallest as the greatest, there is\na something which will appear either becoming or unbecoming, and that\nalmost every one is sensible of it's confluence. But what is becoming, and\nwhat _ought to be_, are very different considerations, and belong to a\ndifferent topic:--for the _ought to be_ points out the perfection of duty,\nwhich should be attended to upon all occasions, and by all persons: but\nthe _becoming_ denotes that which is merely _proper_, and suited to time\nand character, which is of great importance not only in our actions and\nlanguage, but in our very looks, our gesture, and our walk; and that which\nis contrary to it will always be _unbecoming_, and disagreeable. If the\nPoet, therefore, carefully guards against any impropriety of the kind, and\nis always condemned as guilty of a fault, when he puts the language of a\nworthy man into the mouth of a ruffian, or that of a wife man into the\nmouth of a fool:--if, moreover, the artist who painted the sacrifice of\n_Iphigenia_, [Footnote: Agamemnon, one of the Grecian chiefs, having by\naccident slain a deer belonging to Diana, the Goddess was so enraged at\nthis profanation of her honours, that she kept him wind-bound at Aulis\nwith the whole fleet. Under this heavy disaster, having recourse to the\nOracle, (their usual refuge in such cases) they were informed that the\nonly atonement which the angry Goddess would accept, was the sacrifice of\none of the offender's children. Ulysses having, by a stratagem, withdrawn\n_Iphigenia_ from her mother for that purpose, the unhappy Virgin was\nbrought to the altar. But, as the story goes, the Goddess relenting at her\nhard fate, substituted a deer in her stead, and conveyed her away to serve\nher as a Priestess. It must be farther remarked that _Menelaus_ was the\nVirgin's uncle, and Calchas the Priest who was to officiate at this horrid\nsacrifice.] could see that _Chalcas_ should appear greatly concerned,\n_Ulysses_ still more so, and _Menelaus_ bathed in tears, but that the head\nof Agamemnon (the virgin's father) should be covered with his robe, to\nintimate a degree of anguish which no pencil could express: lastly, if a\nmere actor on the stage is ever cautious to keep up the character he\nappears in, what must be done by the Orator? But as this is a matter of\nsuch importance, let him consider at his leisure, what is proper to be\ndone in particular causes, and in their several parts and divisions:--for\nit is sufficiently evident, not only that the different parts of an\nOration, but that entire causes ought to be managed, some in one manner,\nand some in another.\n\nWe must now proceed to delineate the form and character of each of the\nthree species of Eloquence above-mentioned; a great and an arduous talk,\nas I have already observed more than once; But we should have considered\nthe difficulty of the voyage before we embarked: for now we have ventured\nto set sail, we must run boldly before the wind, whether we reach our port\nor not.\n\nThe first character, then, to be described, is the Orator who, according\nto some, is the only one that has any just pretensions to _Atticism_. He\nis distinguished by his modest simplicity; and as he imitates the language\nof conversation, he differs from those who are strangers to Eloquence,\nrather in reality than in appearance. For this reason, those who hear him,\nthough totally unskilled in the art of Speaking, are apt to persuade\nthemselves that they can readily discourse in the same manner [Footnote:\nThere is a pretty remark to the same purpose in the fifteenth number of\n_The Guardian_, which, as it may serve to illustrate the observation of\nCicero, I shall beg leave to insert.\n\n\"From what I have advanced, it appears how difficult it is to write\n_easily_. But when easy writings fall into the hands of an ordinary\nreader, they appear to him so natural and unlaboured, that he immediately\nresolves to write, and fancies that all he has to do is to take no pains.\nThus he thinks indeed simply, but the thoughts not being chosen with\njudgment, are not beautiful. He, it is true, expresses himself plainly,\nbut flatly withal. Again, if a man of vivacity takes it into his head to\nwrite this way, what self-denial must he undergo, when bright points of\nwit occur to his fancy? How difficult will he find it to reject florid\nphrases, and pretty embellishments of style? So true it is, that\nsimplicity of all things is the hardest to be copied, and case to be\nacquired with the greatest labour.\"];--and the unaffected simplicity of\nhis language appears very imitable to an ignorant observer; though nothing\nwill be found less so by him who makes the trial. For, if I may so express\nmyself, though his veins are not over-stocked with blood, his juices must\nbe found and good; and though he is not possessed of any extraordinary\nstrength, he must have a healthy constitution. For this purpose, we must\nfirst release him from the shackles of _number_; for there is (you know) a\nkind of _number_ to be observed by an Orator, which we shall treat of in\nthe sequel:--but this is to be used in a different species of Eloquence,\nand to be relinquished in the present. His language, therefore, must be\nfree and unconfined, but not loose and irregular, that he may appear to\nwalk at ease, without reeling or tottering. He will not be at the pains to\ncement word to word with a scrupulous exactness: for those breaks which\nare made by a collision of vowels, have now and then an agreeable effect,\nand betray the not unpleasing negligence of a man who is more felicitous\nabout things than words. But though he is not to labour at a measured\nflow, and a masterly arrangement of his words, he must be careful in other\nrespects. For even these limited and unaspiring talents are not to be\nemployed carelessly, but with a kind of industrious negligence: for as\nsome females are most becoming in a dishabille, so this artless kind of\nEloquence has her charms, though she appears in an undress. There is\nsomething in both which renders them agreeable, without striking the eye.\nHere, therefore, all the glitter of ornament, like that of jewels and\ndiamonds, must be laid aside; nor must we apply even the crisping-iron to\nadjust the hair. There must be no colouring, no artful washes to heighten\nthe complexion: but elegance and neatness must be our only aim. Our style\nmuft be pure, and correct;--we must speak with clearness and perspicuity;\n--and be always attentive to appear in character. There is one thing,\nhowever, which must never be omitted, and which is reckoned by\nTheophrastus to be one of the chief beauties of composition;--I mean that\nsweet and flowing ornament, a plentiful intermixture of lively sentiments,\nwhich seem to result from a natural fund of good sense, and are peculiarly\ngraceful in the Orator we are now describing. But he will be very moderate\nin using the _furniture_ of Eloquence: for (if I may be allowed such an\nexpression) there is a species of furniture belonging to us, which\nconsists in the various ornaments of sentiment and language. The ornaments\nof language are two-fold; the one sort relates to words as they stand\nsingly, and the other as they are connected together. A _single_ word (I\nspeak of those which are _proper_, and in common use) is then said to be\nwell chosen, when it founds agreeably, and is the best which could have\nbeen taken to express our meaning. Among borrowed and _translatitious_\n[Footnote: Words which are transferred from their primitive meaning to a\nmetaphorical one.] words, (or those which are not used in their proper\nsense) we may reckon the metaphor, the metonymy, and the rest of the\ntropes; as also compounded and new-made words, and such as are obsolete\nand out of date; but obsolete words should rather be considered as proper\nones, with this only difference, that we seldom make use of them. As to\nwords in connection, these also may be considered as ornamental, when they\nhave a certain gracefulness which would be destroyed by changing their\norder, though the meaning would still remain the same. For as to the\nornaments of sentiment, which lose nothing of their beauty, by varying the\nposition of the words,--these, indeed, are very numerous, though only a\nfew of them are remarkably striking.\n\nThe Orator, then, who is distinguished by the simplicity of his manner,\nprovided he is correct and elegant, will be sparing in the use of new\nwords; easy and modest in his metaphors; and very cautious in the use of\nwords which are antiquated;--and as to the other ornaments of language and\nsentiment, here also he will be equally plain and reserved. But in the use\nof metaphors, he will, perhaps, take greater liberties; because these are\nfrequently introduced in conversation, not only by Gentlemen, but even by\nrustics, and peasants: for we often hear them say that the vine _shoots\nout_ it's buds, that the fields are _thirsty_, the corn _lively_, and the\ngrain _rich_ and flourishing. Such expressions, indeed, are rather bold:\nbut the resemblance between the metaphor and the object is either\nremarkably obvious; or else, when the latter has no proper name to express\nit, the metaphor is so far from appearing to be laboured, that we seem to\nuse it merely to explain our meaning. This, therefore, is an ornament in\nwhich our artless Orator may indulge himself more freely; but not so\nopenly as in the more diffusive and lofty species of Eloquence. For that\n_indecorum_, which is best understood by comparing it with its opposite\nquality, will even here be viable when a metaphor is too conspicuous;--or\nwhen this simple and dispassionate sort of language is interrupted by a\nbold ornament, which would have been proper enough in a different kind of\nElocution.\n\nAs to that sort of ornament which regards the position of words, and\nembellishes it with those studied graces, which are considered by the\nGreeks as so many _attitudes_ of language, and are therefore called\n_figures_, (a name which is likewise extended to the flowers of\nsentiment;)--the Orator before us, who may justly be regarded as an\n_Attic_ Speaker, provided the title is not confined to him, will make use\neven of _this_, though with great caution and moderation. He will conduct\nhimself as if he was setting out an entertainment, and while he carefully\navoids a splendid magnificence, he will not only be plain and frugal, but\nneat and elegant, and make his choice accordingly. For there is a kind of\ngenteel parsimony, by which his character is distinguished from that of\nothers. He will, therefore, avoid the more conspicuous ornaments above-\nmentioned, such as the contracting word to word,--the concluding the\nseveral members of a sentence with the same cadence, or confining them to\nthe same measure,--and all the studied prettiness which are formed by the\nchange of a letter, or an artful play of found;--that, if possible, there\nmay not be the slightest appearance, or even suspicion, of a design to\nplease. As to those repetitions which require an earnest and forcible\nexertion of the voice, these also would be equally out of character in\nthis lower species of Eloquence; but he may use the other ornaments of\nElocution at his pleasure, provided he checks and interrupts the flow of\nhis language, and softens it off by using familiar expressions, and such\nmetaphors as are plain and obvious. Nay, even as to the figures of\nsentiment, he may sometimes indulge himself in those which are not\nremarkably bold and striking. Thus, for instance, we must not allow him to\nintroduce the Republic as speaking, nor to fetch up the dead from their\ngraves, nor to crowd a multitude of ideas into the same period. These\nefforts demand a firmer constitution, and should be neither required nor\nexpected from the simple Orator before us; for as in his voice, so\nlikewise in his language, he should be ever easy and composed. But there\nare many of the nobler ornaments which may be admitted even here, though\nalways in a plainer and more artless habit than in any other species of\nEloquence; for such is the character we have assigned him. His gesture\nalso will be neither pompous, nor theatrical, but consist in a moderate\nand easy sway of the body, and derive much of it's efficacy from the\ncountenance,--not a stiff and affected countenance, but such a one as\nhandsomely corresponds with his sentiments.\n\nThis kind of Oratory will likewise be frequently enlivened by those turns\nof wit and pleasantry, which in Speaking have a much greater effect than\nis imagined. There are two sorts of them; the one consisting in smart\nsayings and quick repartees, and the other in what is called _humour_. Our\nOrator will make use of both;--of the latter in his narratives, to make\nthem lively and entertaining;--and of the other, either in giving or\nretorting a stroke of ridicule, of which there are several kinds; but at\npresent it is not our business to specify them. It will not be amiss,\nhowever, to observe by way of caution, that the powers of _ridicule_ are\nnot to be employed too often, lest we sink into scurrility;--nor in loose\nand indecent language, lest we degenerate into wantonness and buffoonery;\n--nor with the least degree of petulance and abuse, lest we appear\naudacious and ill-bred;--nor levelled against the unfortunate, lest we\nincur the censure of inhumanity;--nor against atrocious crimes, lest we\nraise a laugh where we ought to excite abhorrence;--nor, in the last\nplace, should they be used unseasonably, or when the characters either of\nthe Speaker, or the Hearer, and the circumstances of time and place forbid\nit;--otherwise we should grossly fail in that decorum of which we have\nalready said so much. We should likewise avoid all affected witticisms,\nwhich appear not to be thrown out occasionally, but to be dragged from the\ncloset; for such are generally cold and insipid. It is also improper to\njest upon our friends, or upon persons of quality, or to give any strokes\nof wit which may appear ill-natured, or malicious. We should aim only at\nour enemies; and even at these, not upon every occasion, or without any\ndistinction of character, or with the same invariable turn of ridicule.\nUnder these restrictions our artless Orator will play off his wit and\nhumour, as I have never seen it done by any of the modern pretenders to\nAtticism, though they cannot deny that this is entirely in the Attic\ntaste.\n\nSuch, then, is the idea which I have formed of a _simple and an easy\nSpeaker_, who is likewise a very masterly one, and a genuine Athenian; for\nwhatever is smart and pertinent is unquestionably _Attic_, though some of\nthe Attic Speakers were not remarkable for their wit. _Lysias_, indeed,\nand _Hyperides_ were sufficiently so; and _Demades_, it is said, was more\nso than all the others. Demosthenes, however, is thought by many to have\nbut little merit of the kind; but to me nothing can be more genteel than\nhe is; though, perhaps, he was rather smart than humourous. The one\nrequires a quicker genius, but the other more art and address.\n\nBut there is a second character, which is more diffusive, and somewhat\nstronger than the simple and artless, one we have been describing,--though\nconsiderably inferior to that copious and all-commanding Eloquence we\nshall notice in the sequel. In this, though there is but a moderate\nexertion of the nerves and sinews of Oratory, there is abundance of melody\nand sweetness. It is much fuller and richer than the close and accurate\nstyle above-mentioned; but less elevated than the pompous and diffusive.\nIn _this_ all the ornaments of language may be employed without reserve;\nand _here_ the flow of our numbers is ever soft and harmonious. Many of\nthe Greeks have pursued it with success: but, in my opinion, they must all\nyield the palm to _Demetrius Phalereus_, whose Eloquence is ever mild and\nplacid, and bespangled with a most elegant variety of metaphors and other\ntropes, like so many _stars_. By _metaphors_, as I have frequently\nobserved, I mean expressions which, either for the sake of ornament, or\nthrough the natural poverty of our language, are removed and as it were\n_transplanted_ from their proper objects to others, by way of similitude.\nAs to _tropes_ in general, they are particular forms of expression, in\nwhich the proper name of a thing is supplied by another, which conveys the\nsame meaning, but is borrowed from its adjuncts or effects: for, though,\nin this case, there is a kind of metaphor, (because the word is shifted\nfrom its primary object) yet the remove is performed by _Ennius_ in a\ndifferent manner, when he says metaphorically,--\"_You bereave the citadel\nand the city of their offspring_,\"--from what it would have been, if he\nhad put the citadel alone for the whole state: and thus again, when he\ntells us that,--\"_rugged Africa was shaken by a dreadful tumult_,\"--he\nputs Africa for the inhabitants. The Rhetoricians call this an\n_Hypallage_, because one word is substituted for another: but the\nGrammarians call it a _Metonymy_, because the words are shifted and\ninterchanged. Aristotle, however, subjoins it to the metaphor, as he\nlikewise does the _Abuse_ or _Catachresis_; by which, for instance, we say\na _narrow, contracted soul_, instead of a _mean_ one, and thus steal an\nexpression which has a kindred meaning with the proper one, either for the\nsake of ornament or decency. When several metaphors are connected together\nin a regular chain, the form of speaking is varied. The Greeks call this\nan _Allegory_, which indeed is proper enough if we only attend to the\netymology; but if we mean to refer it to its particular _genus_ or kind,\nhe has done better who comprehends the whole under the general name of\nmetaphors. These, however, are frequently used by _Phalereus_, and have a\nsoft and pleasing effect: but though he abounds in the metaphor, he also\nmakes use of the other tropes with as much freedom as any writer whatever.\n\nThis species of Eloquence (I mean the _middling_, or temperate) is\nlikewise embellished with all the brilliant figures of language, and many\nof the figures of sentiment. By this, moreover, the most extensive and\nrefined topics of science are handsomely unfolded, and all the weapons of\nargument are employed without violence. But what need have I to say more?\nSuch Speakers are the common offspring of Philosophy; and were the\nnervous, and more striking Orator to keep out of sight, these alone would\nfully answer our wishes. For they are masters of a brilliant, a florid, a\npicturesque, and a well-wrought Elocution, which is interwoven with all\nthe beautiful embroidery both of language and sentiment. This character\nfirst streamed from the limpid fountains of the _Sophists_ into the Forum;\nbut being afterwards despised by the more simple and refined kind of\nSpeakers, and disdainfully rejected by the nervous and weighty; it was\ncompelled to subside into the peaceful and unaspiring mediocrity we are\nspeaking of.\n\nThe _third character_ is the extensive,--the copious,--the nervous,--the\nmajestic Orator, who possesses the powers of Elocution in their full\nextent. _This_ is the man whose enchanting and diffusive language is so\nmuch admired by listening nations, that they have tamely suffered\nEloquence to rule the world;--but an Eloquence whose course is rapid and\nsonorous!--an Eloquence which every one gazes at, and admires, and\ndespairs to equal! This is the Eloquence that bends and sways the\npassions!--_this_ the Eloquence that alarms or sooths them at her\npleasure! This is the Eloquence that sometimes tears up all before it like\na whirlwind; and, at other times, steals imperceptibly upon the senses,\nand probes to the bottom of the heart!--the Eloquence which ingrafts\nopinions that are new, and eradicates the old; but yet is widely different\nfrom the two characters of Speaking before-mentioned.\n\nHe who exerts himself in the simple and accurate character, and speaks\nneatly and smartly without aiming any higher!--_he_, by this alone, if\ncarried to perfection, becomes a great, if not the greatest of Orators;\nnor does he walk upon slippery ground, so that if he has but learned to\ntread firm, he is in no danger of falling. Also the middle kind of Orator,\nwho is distinguished by his equability, provided he only draws up his\nforces to advantage, fears not the perilous and doubtful hazards of a\npublic Harangue; and, though sometimes he may not succeed to his wishes,\nyet he is never exposed to an absolute defeat; for as he never soars, his\nfall must be inconsiderable. But the Orator, whom we regard as the prince\nof his profession,--the nervous,--the fierce,--the flaming Orator, if he\nis born for this alone, and only practices and applies himself to this,\nwithout tempering his copiousness with the two inferior characters of\nEloquence, is of all others the most contemptible. For the plain and\nsimple Orator, as speaking acutely and expertly, has an appearance of\nwisdom and good-sense; and the middle kind of Orator is sufficiently\nrecommended by his sweetness:--but the copious and diffusive Speaker, if\nhe has no other qualification, will scarcely appear to be in his senses.\nFor he who can say nothing calmly,--nothing gently--nothing methodically,\n--nothing clearly, distinctly, or humourously, (though a number of causes\nshould be so managed throughout, and others in one or more of their\nparts:)--he, moreover, who proceeds to amplify and exaggerate without\npreparing the attention of his audience, will appear to rave before men of\nunderstanding, and to vapour like a person intoxicated before the sober\nand sedate.\n\nThus then, my Brutus, we have at last discovered the finished Orator we\nare seeking for: but we have caught him in imagination only;--for if I\ncould have seized him with my hands, not all his Eloquence should persuade\nme to release him. We have at length, however, discovered the eloquent\nSpeaker, whom Antonius never saw.--But who, then, is he?--I will comprize\nhis character in a few words, and afterwards unfold it more at large.--He,\nthen, is an Orator indeed! who can speak upon trivial subjects with\nsimplicity and art, upon weighty ones with energy and pathos, and upon\nthose of middling import with calmness and moderation. You will tell me,\nperhaps, that such a Speaker has never existed. Be it so:--for I am now\ndiscoursing not upon what I _have_ seen, but upon what I could _wish_ to\nsee; and must therefore recur to that primary semblance or ideal form of\nPlato which I have mentioned before, and which, though it cannot be seen\nwith our bodily eyes, may be comprehended by the powers of imagination.\nFor I am not seeking after a living Orator, or after any thing which is\nmortal and perishing, but after that which confers a right to the title of\n_eloquent_; in other words, I am seeking after Eloquence herself, who can\nbe discerned only by the eye of the mind.\n\nHe then is truly an _Orator_, (I again repeat it,) who can speak upon\ntrivial subjects with simplicity, upon indifferent ones with moderation,\nand upon weighty subjects with energy and pathos. [Footnote: Our Author is\nnow going to indulge himself in the _Egotism_,--a figure, which, upon many\noccasions, he uses as freely as any of the figures of Rhetoric. How the\nReader will relish it, I know not; but it is evident from what follows,\nand from another passage of the same kind further on, that Cicero had as\ngreat a veneration for his own talents as any man living. His merit,\nhowever, was so uncommon both as a Statesman, a Philosopher, and an\nOrator, and he has obliged posterity with so many useful and amazing\nproductions of genius, that we ought in gratitude to forgive the vanity of\nthe _man_. Although he has ornamented the socket in which he has _set_ his\ncharacter, with an extravagant (and I had almost said ridiculous)\nprofusion of self-applause, it must be remembered that the diamond it\ncontains is a gem of inestimable value.] The cause I pleaded for Caecina\nrelated entirely to the bare letter of the Interdict: here, therefore, I\nexplained what was intricate by a definition,--spoke in praise of the\nCivil Law,--and dissolved the ambiguities which embarrassed the meaning of\nthe Statute.--In recommending the Manilian Law, I was to blazon the\ncharacter of _Pompey_, and therefore indulged myself in all that variety\nof ornament which is peculiar to the second species of Eloquence. In the\ncause of Rabirius, as the honour of the Republic was at stake, I blazed\nforth in every species of amplification. But these characters are\nsometimes to be intermingled and diversified. Which of them, therefore, is\nnot to be met with in my seven Invectives against _Verres_? or in the\ncause of _Habitus_? or in that of _Cornelius_? or indeed in most of my\nDefences? I would have specified the particular examples, did I not\nbelieve them to be sufficiently known; or, at least, very easy to be\ndiscovered by those who will take the trouble to seek for them. For there\nis nothing which can recommend an Orator in the different characters of\nspeaking, but what has been exemplified in my Orations,--if not to\nperfection, yet at least it has been attempted, and faintly delineated. I\nhave not, indeed, the vanity to think I have arrived at the summit; but I\ncan easily discern what Eloquence ought to be. For I am not to speak of\nmyself, but to attend to my subject; and so far am I from admiring my own\nproductions, that, on the contrary, I am so nice and difficult, as not to\nbe entirely satisfied with Demosthenes himself, who, though he rises with\nsuperior eminence in every species of Eloquence, does not always fill my\near;--so eager is it, and so insatiable, as to be ever coveting what is\nboundless and immense. But as, by the assistance of _Pammenes_, who is\nvery fond of that Orator, you made yourself thoroughly acquainted with him\nwhen you was at _Athens_, and to this day scarcely ever part with him from\nyour hands, and yet frequently condescend to peruse what has been written\nby _me_; you must certainly have taken notice that he hath _done_ much,\nand that I have _attempted_ much,--that he has been _happy_ enough, and I\n_willing_ enough to speak, upon every occasion, as the nature of the\nsubject required. But he, beyond dispute, was a consummate Orator; for he\nnot only succeeded several eminent Speakers, but had many such for his\ncotemporaries:--and I also, if I could have reached the perfection I aimed\nat, should have made no despicable figure in a city, where (according to\nAntonius) the voice of genuine Eloquence was never heard.\n\nBut if to Antonius neither Crassus, nor even himself, appeared to be\n_eloquent_, we may presume that neither Cotta, Sulpicius, nor Hortensius\nwould have succeeded any better. For _Cotta_ had no expansion, _Sulpicius_\nno temper, and _Hortensius_ too little dignity. But the two former (I mean\nCrassus and Antonius) had a capacity which was better adapted to every\nspecies of Oratory. I had, therefore, to address myself to the ears of a\ncity which had never been filled by that multifarious and extensive\nEloquence we are discoursing of; and I first allured them (let me have\nbeen what you please, or what ever were my talents) to an incredible\ndesire of hearing the finished Speaker who is the subject of the present\nEssay. For with what acclamations did I deliver that passage in my youth\nconcerning the punishment of parricides [Footnote: Those unnatural and\ninfamous wretches, among the Romans, were sown into a leathern sack, and\nthus thrown into the sea; to intimate that they were unworthy of having\nthe lead communication with the common elements of water, earth, and\nair.], though I was afterwards sensible it was too warm and extravagant?\n--\"What is so common, said I, as air to the living, earth to the dead, the\nsea to floating corpses, and the shore to those who are caft upon it by\nthe waves! But these wretches, as long as life remains, so live as not to\nbreathe the air of heaven;--they so perish, that their limbs are not\nsuffered to touch the earth;--they are so tossed to and fro' by the waves,\nas never to be warned by them;--and when they are cast on the shore, their\ndead, carcases cannot rest upon the surface of the rocks!\" All this, as\ncoming from a youth, was much applauded, not for it's ripeness and\nsolidity, but for the hopes it gave the Public of my future improvement.\nFrom the same capacity came those riper expressions,--\"She was the spouse\nof her son-in-law, the step-mother of her own offspring? and the mistress\nof her daughter's husband [Footnote: This passage occurs in the peroration\nof his Defence of Cluentius].\"\n\nBut I did not always indulge myself in this excessive ardour of\nexpression, or speak every thing in the same manner: for even that\nyouthful redundance which was so visible in the defence of _Roscius_, had\nmany passages which were plain and simple, and some which were, tolerably\nhumourous. But the Orations in defence of _Habitus_, and _Cornelius_, and\nindeed many others; (for no single Orator, even among the peaceful and\nspeculative Athenians, has composed such a number as I have;)--these, I\nsay, have all that variety which I so much approve. For have _Homer_ and\n_Ennius_, and the rest of the Poets, but especially the tragic writers,\nnot expressed themselves at all times with the same elevation, but\nfrequently varied their manner, and sometimes lowered it to the style of\nconversation; and shall I oblige myself never to descend from that highest\nenergy of language? Bit why do I mention the Poets whose talents are\ndivine! The very actors on the stage, who have most excelled in their\nprofession, have not only succeeded in very different characters, though\nstill in the same province; but a comedian has often acted tragedies, and\na tragedian comedies so as to give us universal satisfaction. Wherefore,\nthen, should not _I_ also exert my efforts? But when I say _myself_, my\nworthy Brutus I mean _you_: for as to _me_, I have already done all, I was\ncapable of doing. Would _you_, then, plead every cause in the same manner?\nOr is there any sort of causes which your genius would decline? Or even in\nthe same cause, would you always express yourself in the same strain, and\nwithout any variety? Your favourite _Demosthenes_, whose brazen statue I\nlately beheld among your own, and your family images, when I had the\npleasure to visit you at Tusculanum,--Demosthenes, I say, was nothing\ninferior to _Lysias_ in simplicity; to _Hyperides_ in smartness and\npoignancy, or to _Aeschines_ in the smoothness and splendor of his\nlanguage. There are many of his Orations which are entirely of the close\nand simple character, as that against _Lepsines_; many which are all\nnervous, and striking, as those against _Philip_; and many which are of a\nmixed character, as that against _Aeschines_, concerning the false\nembassy, and another against the same person in defence of _Ctesiphon_. At\nother times he strikes into the _mean_ at his pleasure, and quitting the\nnervous character, descends to this with all the ease imaginable. But he\nraises the acclamations of his audience, and his Oratory is then most\nweighty and powerful, when he applies himself to the _nervous_.\n\nBut as our enquiries relate to the art, and not to the artist, let us\nleave _him_ for the present, and consider the nature and the properties of\nthe object before us,--that is, of _Eloquence_. We must keep in mind,\nhowever, what I have already hinted,--that we are not required to deliver\na system of precepts, but to write as judges and critics, rather than\nteachers. But I have expatiated so largely upon the subject, because I\nforesee that you (who are, indeed, much better versed in it, than I who\npretend to inform you) will not be my only reader; but that my little\nessay, though not much perhaps to my credit, will be made public, and with\nyour name prefixed to it.\n\nI am of opinion, therefore, that a finished Orator should not only possess\nthe talent (which, indeed, is peculiar, to himself) of speaking copiously\nand diffusively: but that he should also borrow the assistance of it's\nnearest neighbour, the art of Logic. For though public speaking is one\nthing, and disputing another; and though there is a visible difference\nbetween a private controversy, and a public Harangue; yet both the one and\nthe other come under the notion of reasoning. But mere discourse and\nargument belongs to the Logician, and the art of Speaking gracefully and\nornamentally is the prerogative of the Orator. _Zeno_, the father of the\n_Stoics_, used to illustrate the difference between the two by holding up\nhis hand;--for when he clenched his fingers, and presented a close fist,--\n\"_that_,\" he said, \"was an emblem of Logic:\"--but when he spread them out\nagain, and displayed his open hand,--\"this,\" said he, \"resembles\nEloquence.\" But Aristotle observed before him, in the introduction to his\nRhetoric, that it is an art which has a near resemblance to that of\nLogic;--and that the only difference between them is, that the method of\nreasoning in the former is more diffusive, and in the latter more close\nand contracted.\n\nI, therefore, advise that our finished Orator make himself master of every\nthing in the art of Logic, which is applicable to his profession:--an art\n(as your thorough knowledge of it has already informed you) which is\ntaught after two methods. For Aristotle himself has delivered a variety of\nprecepts concerning the art of Reasoning:--and besides these, the\n_Dialecticians_ (as they are called) have produced many intricate and\nthorny speculations of their own. I am, therefore, of opinion, that he who\nis ambitious to be applauded for his Eloquence, should not be wholly\nunacquainted with this branch of Erudition; but that he ought (at least)\nto be properly instructed either in the old method, or in that of\n_Chrysippus_. In the first place, he should understand the force, the\nextension, and the different species of words as they stand singly, or\nconnected into sentences. He should likewise be acquainted with the\nvarious modes and forms in which any conception of the mind may be\nexpressed--the methods of distinguishing a true proposition from a false\none;--the different conclusions which result from different premises;--the\ntrue consequences and opposites to any given proposition;--and, if an\nargument is embarrassed by ambiguities, how to unravel each of them by an\naccurate distinction. These particulars, I say, should be well understood\nby an Orator, because they are such as frequently occur: but as they are\nnaturally rugged and unpleasing, they should be relieved in practice by an\neasy brilliance of expression.\n\nBut as in every topic which is discussed by reason and method, we should\nfirst settle what it is we are to discourse upon,--(for unless the parties\nin a dispute are agreed about the subject of it, they can neither reason\nwith propriety, nor bring the argument to an issue;)--it will frequently\nbe necessary to explain our notions of it, and, when the matter is\nintricate, to lay it open by a _definition_;--for a _definition_ is only a\nsentence, or explanation, which specifies, in as few words as possible,\nthe nature of the object we propose to consider. After the _genus_, or\nkind, has been sufficiently determined, we must then proceed (you know) to\nexamine into it's different species, or subordinate parts, that our whole\ndiscourse may be properly distributed among them. Our Orator, then, should\nbe qualified to make a just definition;--though not in such a close and\ncontracted form, as in the critical debates of the Academy, but more\nexplicitly and copiously, and as will be best adapted to the common way of\nthinking, and the capacity of the vulgar. He is likewise, as often as\noccasion requires, to divide the genus into it's proper species, so as to\nbe neither defective, nor redundant. But _how_ and _when_ this should be\ndone, is not our present business to consider: because, as I observed\nbefore, I am not to assume the part of a teacher, but only of a critic and\na judge.\n\nBut he ought to acquaint himself not only with the art of Logic, but with\nall the common and most useful branches of Morality. For without a\ncompetent knowledge of these, nothing can be advanced and unfolded with\nany spirit and energy, or with becoming dignity and freedom, either\nconcerning religion,--death,--filial piety,--the love of our country,--\nthings good or evil,--the several virtues and vices,--the nature of moral\nobligation,--grief or pleasure, and the other emotions of the mind,--or\nthe various errors and frailties of humanity,--and a variety of important\ntopics which are often closely connected with forensic causes; though\n_here_(it is true) they must be touched upon more slightly and\nsuperficially. I am now speaking of the _materials_ of Eloquence, and not\nof the _art_ itself:--for an Orator should always be furnished with a\nplentiful stock of sentiments,--(I mean such as may claim the attention of\nthe learned, as well as of the vulgar)--before he concerns himself about\nthe language and the manner in which he ought to express himself.\n\nThat he may make a still more respectable and elevated figure (as we have\nalready observed of _Pericles_) he should not be unacquainted with the\nprinciples of Natural Philosophy. For when he descends, as it were, from\nthe starry heavens, to the little concerns of humanity, he will both think\nand speak with greater dignity and splendor. But after acquainting himself\nwith those divine and nobler objects of contemplation, I would have him\nattend to human concerns. In particular, let him make himself master of\nthe _Civil Law_, which is of daily, and indeed necessary use in every kind\nof causes. For what can be more scandalous, than to undertake the\nmanagement of judicial suits and controversies, without a proper knowledge\nof the laws, and of the principles of Equity and Jurisprudence? He\nshould also be well versed in History and the venerable records of\nAntiquity, but particularly those of his own country: not neglecting,\nhowever, to peruse the annals of other powerful nations, and illustrious\nmonarchs;--a toil which has been considerably shortened by our friend\n_Atticus_, who (though he has carefully specified the time of every\nevent, and omitted no transaction of consequence) has comprized the\nhistory of seven hundred years in a single volume. To be unacquainted with\nwhat has passed in the world, before we came into it ourselves, is to be\nalways children. For what is the age of a single mortal, unless it is\nconnected, by the aid of History, with the times of our ancestors?\nBesides, the relation of past occurrences, and the producing pertinent and\nstriking examples, is not only very entertaining, but adds a great deal of\ndignity and weight to what we say.\n\nThus furnished and equipped our Orator may undertake the management of\ncauses. But, in the first place, he should be well acquainted with their\ndifferent kinds. He should know, for instance, that every judicial\ncontroversy must turn either upon a matter of _fact_, or upon the meaning\nof some particular expression. As to the former, this must always relate\neither to the _reality_ of a fast, the _equity_ of it, or the _name_ it\nbears in law. As to forms of expression, these may become the subject of\ncontroversy, when they are either _ambiguous_, or _contradictory_. For\nwhen the _spirit_ of a law appears to be at variance with the _letter_ of\nit, this must cause an ambiguity which commonly arises from some of the\npreceding terms; so that in this case (for such is the nature of an\nambiguity) the law will appear to have a double meaning.\n\nAs the kinds of causes are so few, the rules for the invention of\narguments must be few also. The topics, or common places from which those\narguments are derived, are twofold,--the one _inherent_ in the subject,\nand the other _assumptive_. A skilful management of the former contributes\nmost to, give weight to a discourse, and strike the attention of the\nhearer: because they are easy, and familiar to the understanding.\n\nWhat farther remains (within the province of the Art) but that we should\nbegin our discourses so as to conciliate the hearer's good-will, or raise\nhis expectation, or prepare him to receive what follows?--to state the\ncase before us so concisely, and yet so plausibly and clearly, as that the\nsubstance of it may be easily comprehended?--to support our own proofs,\nand refute those of our antagonist, not in a confused and disorderly\nmanner, but so that every inference may be fairly deducible from the\npremises?--and, in the last place, to conclude the whole with a peroration\neither to inflame or allay the passions of the audience? How each of these\nparts should be conducted is a subject too intricate and extensive for our\npresent consideration: for they are not always to be managed in the same\nmanner.\n\nBut as I am not seeking a pupil to instruct, but an Orator who is to be\nthe model of his profession, _he_ must have the preference who can always\ndiscern what is proper and becoming. For Eloquence should, above all,\nthings, have that kind of discretion which makes her a _perfect mistress\nof time and character_: because we are not to speak upon every occasion,\nor before every audience, or against every opponent, or in defence of\nevery client, and to every Judge, in the same invariable manner. He,\ntherefore, is the man of genuine Eloquence, who can adapt his language to\nwhat is most suitable to each. By doing this, he will be sure to say every\nthing as it ought to be said. He will neither speak drily upon copious\nsubjects, nor without dignity and spirit upon things of importance; but\nhis language will always be proportioned, and equal to his subject. His\nintroduction will be modest,--not flaming with all the glare of\nexpression, but composed of quick and lively turns of sentiment, either to\nwound the cause of his antagonist, or recommend his own. His narratives\nwill be clear and plausible,--not delivered with the grave formality of an\nHistorian, but in the style of polite conversation. If his cause be\nslight, the thread of his argument, both in proving and refuting, will be\nso likewise, and he will so conduct it in every part, that his language\nmay rise and expand itself, as the dignity of his subject encreases. But\nwhen his cause will admit a full exertion of the powers of Eloquence, he\nwill then display himself more openly;--he will then rule, and bend the\npassions, and direct them, at his pleasure,--that is, as the nature of his\ncause and the circumstances of the time shall require.\n\nBut his powers of ornament will be chiefly exerted upon two occasions; I\nmean that striking kind of ornament, from which Eloquence derives her\ngreatest glory. For though every part of an Oration should have so much\nmerit, as not to contain a single word but what is either weighty or\nelegant; there are two very interesting parts which are susceptible of the\ngreatest variety of ornament. The one is the discussion of an indefinite\nquestion, or general truth, which by the Greeks (as I have before\nobserved) is called a _thesis_: and the other is employed in amplifying\nand exaggerating, which they call an _auxesis_. Though the latter, indeed,\nshould diffuse itself more or less through the whole body of a discourse,\nit's powers will be more conspicuous in the use and improvement of the\n_common places_:--which are so called, as being alike _common_ to a number\nof causes, though (in the application of them) they are constantly\nappropriated to a single one. But as to the other part, which regards\nuniversal truths, or indefinite questions, this frequently extends through\na whole cause:--for the leading point in debate, or that which the\ncontroversy hinges upon, is always most conveniently discussed when it can\nbe reduced to a general question, and considered as an universal\nproposition:--unless, indeed, when the mere truth of a matter of fact: is\nthe object: of disquisition: for then the case must be wholly conjectural.\nWe are not, however, to argue like the _Peripatetics_ (who have a neat\nmethod of controversy which they derive from _Aristotle_) but more\nnervously and pressingly; and general sentiments must be so applied to\nparticular cases, as to leave us room to say many extenuating things in\nbehalf of the Defendant, and many severe ones against the Plaintiff. But\nin heightening or softening a circumstance, the powers of language are\nunlimited, and may be properly exerted, even in the middle of an argument,\nas often as any thing presents itself which may be either exaggerated, or\nextenuated; but, in, controul.\n\nThere are two parts, however, which must not be omitted;--for when these\nare judiciously conducted, the sorce of Eloquence will be amazing. The one\nis a certain _propriety of manner_ (called the _ethic_ by the Greeks)\nwhich readily adapts itself to different dispositions and humours, and to\nevery station of life:--and the other is the pathetic, which rouses and\nalarms the passions, and may be considered as the _scepter_ of Eloquence.\nThe former is mild and insinuating, and entirely calculated to conciliate\nthe good-will of the hearer: but the latter is all energy and fire, and\nsnatches a cause by open violence;--and when it's course is rapid and\nunrestrained, the shock is irresistible. I [footnote: Here follows the\nsecond passage above-referred to, in which there is a long string of\n_Egotisms_. But as they furnish some very instructive hints, the Reader\nwill peruse them with more pleasure than pain] myself have possessed a\ntolerable share of this, or, it may be, a trifling one:--but as I always\nspoke with uncommon warmth and impetuosity, I have frequently forced my\nantagonist to relinquish the field. _Hortensius_, an eminent Speaker, once\ndeclined to answer me, though in defence of an intimate friend.\n_Cataline_, a most audacious traitor, being publicly accused by me in the\nSenate-house, was struck dumb with shame: and _Curio_, the father, when he\nattempted to reply to me in a weighty and important cause which concerned\nthe honour of his family, sat suddenly down, and complained that I had\n_bewitched_ him out of his memory. As to moving the pity of my audience,\nit will be unnecessary to mention this. I have frequently attempted it\nwith good success, and when several of us have pleaded on the same side,\nthis part of the defence was always resigned to me; in which my supposed\nexcellence was not owing to the superiority of my genius, but to the real\nconcern I felt for the distresses of my client. But what in this respect\nhave been my talents (for I have had no reason to complain of them) may be\neasily discovered in my Orations:--though a book, indeed, must lose much\nof the spirit which makes a speech delivered in public appear to greater\nadvantage than when it is perused in the closet.\n\nBut we are to raise not only the pity of our judges, (which I have\nendeavoured so passionately, that I once took up an infant in my arms\nwhile I was speaking;--and, at another time, calling up the nobleman in\nwhose defence I spoke, and holding up a little child of his before the\nwhole assembly, I filled the Forum with my cries and lamentations:)--but\nit is also necessary to rouse the judge's indignation, to appease it, to\nexcite his jealousy, his benevolence, his contempt, his wonder, his\nabhorrence, his love, his desire, his aversion, his hope, his fear, his\njoy, and his grief:--in all which variety, you may find examples, in many\naccusatory speeches, of rousing the harsher passions; and my Defences will\nfurnish instances enough of the methods of working upon the gentler. For\nthere is no method either of alarming or soothing the passions, but what\nhas been attempted by _me_. I would say I have carried it to perfection,\nif I either thought so, or was not afraid that (in this case) even truth\nitself might incur the charge of arrogance. But (as I have before\nobserved) I have been so much transported, not by the force of my genius,\nbut by the real fervor of my heart, that I was unable to restrain myself:\n--and, indeed, no language will inflame the mind of the hearer, unless the\nSpeaker himself first catches the ardor, and glows with the importance of\nhis subject. I would refer to examples of my own, unless you had seen them\nalready; and to those of other Speakers among the Romans, if I could\nproduce any, or among the Greeks, if I judged it proper. But _Crassus_\nwill only furnish us with a few, and those not of the forensic kind:--\n_Antonius, Cotta_, and _Sulpicius_ with none:--and as to _Hortensius_, he\nspoke much better than he wrote. We may, therefore, easily judge how\namazing must be the force of a talent, of which we have so few examples:--\nbut if we are resolved to seek for them, we must have recourse to\n_Demosthenes_, in whom we find almost a continued succession of them, in\nthat part of his Oration for _Ctesiphon_, where he enlarges on his own\nactions, his measures, and his good services to the State, For that\nOration, I must own, approaches so near to the primary form or semblance\nof Eloquence which exists in my mind, that a more complete and exalted\npattern is scarcely desirable. But still, there will remain a general\nmodel or character, the true nature and excellence of which may be easily\ncollected from the hints I have already offered.\n\nWe have slightly touched upon the ornaments\nof language, both in single words, and in words as they stand connected\nwith each other;--in which our Orator will so indulge himself, that not a\nsingle expression may escape him, but what is either elegant or weighty.\nBut he will most abound in the _metaphor_; which, by an aptness of\nsimilitude, conveys and transports the mind from object to object, and\nhurries it backwards and forwards through a pleasing variety of images;--a\nmotion which, in its own nature, (as being full of life and action) can\nnever fail to be highly delightful. As to the other ornaments of language\nwhich regard words as they are connected with each other, an Oration will\nderive much of its lustre from these. They are like the decorations in the\nTheatre, or the Forum, which not only embellish, but surprize. [Footnote:\nIn the following Abstract of the Figures of _Language_ and _Sentiment_, I\nhave often paraphrased upon my author, to make him intelligible to the\nEnglish reader;--a liberty which I have likewise taken in several other\nplaces, where I judged it necessary.] For such also is the effect of the\nvarious _figures_ or decorations of language;--such as the doubling or\nrepetition of the same word;--the repeating it with a slight variation;\n--the beginning or concluding several sentences in the same manner, or\nboth at once;--the making a word, which concludes a preceding sentence, to\nbegin the following;--the concluding a sentence with the same expression\nwhich began it;--the repeating the same word with a different meaning;\n--the using several corresponding words in the same case, or with the same\ntermination;--the contrasting opposite expressions;--the using words whose\nmeaning rises in gradation;--the leaving out the conjunctive particles to\nshew our earnestness;--the passing by, or suddenly dropping a circumstance\nwe were going to mention, and assigning a reason for so doing;\n--[Footnote: We have an instance of this, considered as a figure of\nlanguage, in the following line of Virgil;\n  Quos ego--, sed praestat motos componere fluctus.\n                                        Aeneid. I.\n  Whom I--, but let me still the raging waves.\nThis may likewise serve as an example of the figure which is next\nmentioned.] the pretending to correct or reprove ourselves, that we may\nseem to speak without artifice or partiality;--the breaking out into a\nsudden exclamation, to express our wonder, our abhorrence, or our grief;--\nand the using the same noun in different cases.\n\nBut the figures of _sentiment_ are more weighty and powerful; and there\nare some who place the highest merit of _Demosthenes_ in the frequent use\nhe makes of them. For be his subject what it will, almost all his\nsentences have a figurative air: and, indeed, a plentiful intermixture of\nthis sort of figures is the very life and soul of a popular Eloquence. But\nas you are thoroughly acquainted with these, my Brutus, what occasion is\nthere to explain and exemplify them? The bare mention of them will be\nsufficient.--Our Orator, then, will sometimes exhibit an idea in different\npoints of view, and when he has started a good argument, he will dwell\nupon it with an honest exultation;--he will extenuate what is\nunfavourable, and have frequent recourse to raillery;--he will sometimes\ndeviate from his plan, and seem to alter his first purpose:--he will\ninform his audience beforehand, what are the principal points upon which\nhe intends to rest his cause;--he will collect and point out the force of\nthe arguments he has already discussed; he will check an ardent\nexpression, or boldly reiterate what he has said;--he will close a lively\nparagraph with some weighty and convincing sentiment;--he will press upon\nhis adversary by repeated interrogations;--he will reason with himself,\nand answer questions of his own proposing;--he will throw out expressions\nwhich he designs to be otherwise understood than they seem to mean;--he\nwill pretend to doubt what is most proper to be said, and in what order;--\nhe will divide an action, &c. into its several parts and circumstances, to\nrender it more striking;--he will pretend to pass over and relinquish a\ncircumstance which might have been urged to advantage;--he will secure\nhimself against the known prejudices of his audience;--he will turn the\nvery circumstance which is alledged against him to the prejudice of his\nantagonist;--he will frequently appeal to his hearers, and sometimes to\nhis opponent;--he will represent the very language and manners of the\npersons he is speaking of;--he will introduce irrational and even\ninanimate beings, as addressing themselves to his audience;--he will (to\nserve some necessary purpose) steal off their attention from the point in\ndebate;--he will frequently move them to mirth and laughter;--he will\nanswer every thing which he foresees will be objected;--he will compare\nsimilar incidents,--refer to past examples,--and by way of amplification\nassign their distinguishing qualities to opposite characters and\ncircumstances;--he will check an impertinent plea which may interrupt his\nargument;--he will pretend not to mention what he might have urged to good\npurpose;--he will caution his hearers against the various artifices and\nsubterfuges which may be employed to deceive them;--he will sometimes\nappear to speak with an honest, but unguarded freedom;--he will avow his\nresentment;--he will entreat;--he will earnestly supplicate;--he will\napologize;--he will seem for a moment to forget himself;--he will express\nhis hearty good wishes for the deserving, and vent his execrations against\nnotorious villainy;--and now and then he will descend imperceptibly to the\nmost tender and insinuating familiarities. There are likewise Other\nbeauties of composition which he will not fail to pursue;--such as brevity\nwhere the subject requires it;--a lively and pathetic description of\nimportant occurrences;--a passionate exaggeration of remarkable\ncircumstances;--an earnestness of expression which implies more than is\nsaid;--a well-timed variety of humour;--and a happy imitation of different\ncharacters and dispositions. Assisted and adorned by such figures as\nthese, which are very numerous, the force of Eloquence will appear in its\nbrightest lustre. But even these, unless they are properly formed and\nregulated, by a skilful disposition of their constituent words, will never\nattain the merit we require;--a subject which I shall be obliged to treat\nof in the sequel, though I am restrained partly by the circumstances\nalready mentioned, but much more so by the following. For I am sensible\nnot only that there are some invidious people, to whom every improvement\nappears vain and superfluous; but that even those, who are well-wishers to\nmy reputation, may think it beneath the dignity of a man whose public\nservices have been so honourably distinguished by the Senate, and the\nwhole body of the Roman people, to employ my pen so largely upon the art\nof Speaking. [Footnote: The long apology which our author is now going to\nmake for bestowing his time in composing a treatise of Oratory, is in fact\na very artful as well as an elegant digression; to relieve the dryness and\nintricacy of the abstract he has just given us of the figures of rhetoric,\nand of the subsequent account of the rules of prosaic harmony. He has also\nenlivened that account (which is a very long one) in the same manner, by\ninterspersing it, at convenient distances, with fine examples, agreeable\ncompanions, and short historical digressions to elucidate the subject.]\n\nIf, however, I was to return no other answer to the latter, but that I was\nunwilling to deny any thing to the request of Brutus, the apology must be\nunexceptionable; because I am only aiming at the satisfaction of an\nintimate friend, and a worthy man, who desires nothing of me but what is\njust and honourable.\n\nBut was I even to profess (what I wish I was capable of) that I mean to\ngive the necessary precepts, and point out the road to Eloquence to those\nwho are desirous to qualify themselves for the Forum, what man of sense\ncould blame me for it? For who ever doubted that in the decision of\npolitical matters, and in time of peace, Eloquence has always borne the\nsway in the Roman state, while Jurisprudence has possessed only the second\npost of honour? For whereas the former is a constant source of authority\nand reputation, and enables us to defend ourselves and our friends in the\nmost effectual manner;--the other only furnishes us with formal rules for\nindictments, pleas, protests, &c. in conducting which she is frequently\nobliged to sue for the assistance of Eloquence;--but if the latter\ncondescends to oppose her, she is scarcely able to maintain her ground,\nand defend her own territories. If therefore to teach the Civil Law has\nalways been reckoned a very honourable employment, and the houses of the\nmost eminent men of that profession, have been crowded with disciples; who\ncan be reasonably censured for exciting our youth to the study of\nEloquence, and furnishing them with all the assistance in his power? If it\nis a fault to speak gracefully, let Eloquence be for ever banished from\nthe state. But if, on the contrary, it reflects an honour, not only upon\nthe man who possesses it, but upon the country which gave him birth, how\ncan it be a disgrace to _learn_, what it is so glorious to _know_? Or why\nshould it not be a credit to _teach_ what it is the highest honour to\nhave _learned_?\n\nBut, in one case, they will tell me, the practice has been sanctified by\ncustom, and in the other it has not. This I grant: but We may easily\naccount for both. As to the gentlemen of the law, it was sufficient to\nhear them, when they decided upon such cases as were laid before them in\nthe course of business;--so that when they taught, they did not set apart\nany particular time for that purpose, but the same answers satisfied their\nclients and their pupils. On the other hand, as our Speakers of eminence\nspent their time, while at home, in examining and digesting their causes,\nand while in the Forum in pleading them, and the remainder of it in a\nseasonable relaxation, what opportunity had they for teaching and\ninstructing others? I might venture to add that most of our Orators have\nbeen more distinguishied by their _genius_, than by their _learning_; and\nfor that reason were much better qualified to be _Speakers_ than\n_Teachers_; which it is possible may be the reverse of my case.--\"True,\"\nsay they; \"but teaching is an employment which is far from being\nrecommended by its dignity.\" And so indeed it is, if we teach like mere\npedagogues. But if we only direct, encourage, examine, and inform our\npupils; and sometimes accompany them in reading or hearing the\nperformances of the most eminent Speakers;--if by these means we are able\nto contribute to their improvement, what should hinder us from\ncommunicating a few instructions, as opportunity offers? Shall we deem it\nan honourable employment, as indeed with us it is, to teach the form of a\nlegal process, or an excommunication from the rites and privileges of our\nreligion; and shall it not be equally honourable to teach the methods by\nwhich those privileges may be defended and secured?--\"Perhaps it may,\"\nthey will reply; \"but even those who know scarcely any thing of the law\nare ambitious to be thought masters of it; whereas those who are well\nfurnished with the powers of Eloquence pretend to be wholly unacquainted\nwith them; because they are sensible that useful knowledge is a valuable\nrecommendation, whereas an artful tongue is suspected by every one.\" But\nis it possible, then, to exert the powers of Eloquence without discovering\nthem? Or is an Orator really thought to be no Orator, because he disclaims\nthe title? Or is it likely that, in a great and noble art, the world will\njudge it a scandal to _teach_ what it is the greatest honour to _learn_?\nOthers, indeed, may have been more reserved; but, for my part, I have\nalways owned my profession. For how could I do otherwise, when, in my\nyouth, I left my native land, and crossed the sea, with no other view but\nto improve myself in this kind of knowledge; and, when afterwards my house\nwas crowded with the ablest professors, and my very style betrayed some\ntraces of a liberal education? Nay, when my own writings were in every\nbody's hands, with what face could I pretend that I had not studied? Or\nwhat excuse could I have for submitting my abilities to the judgment of\nthe public, if I had been apprehensive that they would think I had studied\nto no purpose? [Footnote: This sentence in the original runs thus;--_Quid\nerat cur probarem_ (i.e. scripta nostra), _nisi quod parum fortasse\nprofeceram_?--\"Wherefore did I approve of them,\" (that is, of my writings,\nso far as to make them public) \"but because I had,\" (in my own opinion)\n\"made a progress, though perhaps a small one, in useful literature?\" This,\nat least, is the only meaning I am able to affix to it; and I flatter\nmyself, that the translation I have given of it, will be found to\ncorrespond with the general sense of my author.] But the points we have\nalready discussed are susceptible of greater dignity and elevation, than\nthose which remain to be considered. For we are next to treat of the\narrangement of our words; and, indeed, I might have said, of the art of\nnumbering and measuring our very syllables; which, though it may, in\nreality, be a matter of as much consequence as I judge it to be, cannot\nhowever be supposed to have such a striking appearance in precept as in\npractice. This, indeed, might be said of every other branch of useful\nknowledge; but it is more remarkably true with respect to this. For the\nactual growth and improving height of all the sublimer arts, like that of\ntrees, affords a pleasing prospect; whereas the roots and stems are\nscarcely beheld with indifference: and yet the former cannot subsist\nwithout the latter. But whether I am restrained from dissembling the\npleasure I take in the subject, by the honest advice of the Poet, who\nsays,\n\n  \"Blush not to own the art you love to practise.\"\n\nor whether this treatise has been extorted from me by the importunity of\nmy friend, it was proper to obviate the censures to which it will probably\nexpose me. And yet, even supposing that I am mistaken in my sentiments,\nwho would shew himself so much of a savage, as to refuse me his indulgence\n(now all my forensic employments and public business are at an end) for\nnot resigning myself to that stupid inactivity which is contrary to my\nnature, or to that unavailing sorrow which I do my best to overcome,\nrather than devote myself to my favourite studies? These first conducted\nme into the Forum and the Senate-House, and they are now the chief\ncomforts of my retirement. I have, however, applied myself not only to\nsuch speculations as form the subject of the present Essay, but to others\nmore sublime and interesting; and if I am able to discuss them in a proper\nmanner, my private studies will be no disparagement to my forensic\nemployments.\n\nBut it is time to return to our subject.--Our words, then, should be so\ndisposed that every following one may be aptly connected with the\npreceding, so as to make an agreeable sound;--or that the mere form and\n_concinnity_ of our language may give our sentences their proper measure\nand dimensions;--or, lastly, that our periods may have a numerous and\nmeasured cadence.\n\nThe first thing, then, to be attended to, is the _structure_ of our\nlanguage, or the agreeable connection of one word with another; which,\nthough it certainly requires care, ought not to be practised with a\nlaborious nicety. For this would be an endless and puerile attempt, and is\njustly ridiculed by _Lucilius_, when he introduces _Scaevola_ thus\nreflecting upon _Albucius_:\n\n  \"As in the checquer'd pavement ev'ry square\n  Is nicely fitted by the mason's care:\n  So all thy words are plac'd with curious art,\n  And ev'ry syllable performs its part.\"\n\nBut though we are not to be minutely exact in the _structure_ of our\nlanguage, a moderate share of practice will habituate us to every thing of\nthis nature which is necessary. For as the eye in _reading_, so the mind\nin _speaking_, will readily discern what ought to follow,--that, in\nconnecting our words, there may neither be a chasm, nor a disagreeable\nharshness. The most lively and interesting sentiments, if they are harshly\nexpressed, will offend the ear, that delicate and fastidious judge of\nrhetorical harmony. This circumstance, therefore, is so carefully attended\nto in the Roman language, that there is scarcely a rustic among us who is\nnot averse to a collision of vowels,--a defect which, in the opinion of\nsome, was too scrupulously avoided by _Theopompus_, though his master\n_Isocrates_ was equally cautious. But _Thucydides_ was not so exact; nor\nwas Plato, (though a much better writer)--not only in his _Dialogues_, in\nwhich it was necessary to maintain an easy negligence, to resemble the\nstyle of conversation, but in the famous _Panegyric_, in which (according\nto the custom of the Athenians) he celebrated the praises of those who\nfell in battle, and which was so greatly esteemed, that it is publicly\nrepeated every year. In that Oration a collision of vowels occurs very\nfrequently; though _Demosthenes_ generally avoids it as a fault.\n\nBut let the Greeks determine for themselves: we Romans are not allowed to\ninterrupt the connection of our words. Even the rude and unpolished\nOrations of _Cato_ are a proof of this; as are likewise all our poets,\nexcept in particular instances, in which they were obliged to admit a few\nbreaks, to preserve their metre. Thus we find in _Naevius_,\n\n  \"_Vos_ QUI ACCOLITIS _histrum_ FLUVIUM ATQUE ALGIDUM.\"\n\nAnd in another place,\n\n  \"_Quam nunquam vobis_ GRAII ATQUE _Barbari_.\"\n\nBut _Ennius_ admits it only once, when he says,\n\n  \"_Scipio invicte_;\"\n\nand likewise I myself in\n\n  \"_Hoc motu radiantis_ ETESIAE IN _Vada Ponti_.\"\n\nThis, however, would seldom be suffered among us, though the Greeks often\ncommend it as a beauty.\n\nBut why do I speak of a collision of vowels? for, omitting this, we have\nfrequently _contracted_ our words for the sake of brevity; as in _multi'\nmodis, vas' argenteis, palm' et crinibus, tecti' fractis_, &c. We have\nsometimes also contracted our proper _names_, to give them a smoother\nsound: for as we have changed _Duellum_ into _Bellum_, and _duis_ into\n_bis_, so _Duellius_, who defeated the Carthagenians at sea, was called\n_Bellius_, though all his ancestors were named _Duellii_. We likewise\nabbreviate our words, not only for convenience, but to please and gratify\nthe ear. For how otherwise came _axilla_ to be changed into _ala_, but by\nthe omission of an unweildy consonant, which the elegant pronunciation of\nour language has likewise banished from the words _maxillae, taxillae,\nvexillum_, and _paxillum_?\n\nUpon the same principle, two or more words have been contracted into one,\nas _sodes_ for _si audes_, _sis_ for _si vis_, _capsis_ for _cape si vis_,\n_ain'_ for _aisne_, _nequire_ for _non quire_, _malle_ for _magis velle_,\nand _nolle_ for _non velle_; and we often say _dein'_ and _exin'_ for\n_deinde_ and _exinde_. It is equally evident why we never say _cum nobis_,\nbut _nobiscum_; though we do not scruple to say _cum illis_;--_viz._\nbecause, in the former case, the union of the consonants _m_ and _n_ would\nproduce a jarring sound: and we also say _mecum_ and _tecum_, and not _cum\nme_ and _cum te_, to correspond with _nobiscum_ and _vobiscum_. But some,\nwho would correct antiquity rather too late, object to these contractions:\nfor, instead of _prob_ DEUM _atque hominum fidem_, they say _Deorum_. They\nare not aware, I suppose, that custom has sanctified the licence. The same\nPoet, therefore, who, almost without a precedent, has said _patris mei\nMEUM FACTUM pudet_, instead of _meorum factorum_,--and _textitur exitium\nexamen rapit_ for _exitiorum_, does not choose to say _liberum_, as we\ngenerally do in the expressions _cupidos liberum_, and _in liberum loco_,\nbut, as the literary virtuosos above-mentioned would have it,\n\n  _neque tuum unquam in gremium extollas_\n                  LIBERORUM _ex te genus_,\n\nand,\n\n  _namque Aesculapi_ LIBERORUM.\n\nBut the author before quoted says in his Chryses, not only\n\n  _Cives, antiqui amici majorum_ MEUM,\n\nwhich was common enough--, but more harshly still,\n\n  CONSILIUM, AUGURIUM, _atque_ EXTUM _interpretes_;\n\nand in another place,\n\n  _Postquam_ PRODIGIUM HORRIFERUM PORTENTUM _pavos_.\n\na licence which is not customary in all neuters indifferently: for I\nshould not be so willing to say armum _judicium_, as _armorum_; though in\nthe same writer we meet with _nihilne ad te de judicio_ armum _accidit_?\nAnd yet (as we find it in the public registers) I would venture to say\n_fabrum_, and _procum_, and not _fabrorum_ and _procorum_. But I would\nnever say duorum virorum _judicium_, or _trium_ virorum _capitalium_, or\n_decem_ virorum _litibus judicandis_. In Accius, however, we meet with\n\n  _Video sepulchra duo_ duorum _corporum_;\n\nthough in another place he says,\n\n  _Mulier una_ duum virum.\n\nI know, indeed, which is most conformable to the rules of grammar: but yet\nI sometimes express myself as the freedom of our language allows me, as\nwhen I say at pleasure, either _prob deum_, or _prob deorum_;--and, at\nother times, as I am obliged by custom, as when I say _trium_ virum for\n_virorum_, or sestertium nummum for _nummorum_: because in the latter case\nthe mode of expression is invariable.\n\nBut what shall we say when these humourists forbid us to say _nosse_ and\n_judicasse_ for _novisse_ and _judicavisse_; as if we did not know, as\nwell as themselves, that, in these instances, the verb at full length is\nmost agreeable to the laws of grammar, though custom has given the\npreference to the contracted verb? Terence, therefore, has made use of\nboth, as when he says, _eho tu cognatum tuum non noras_? and afterwards,\n\n  _Stilphonem, inquam, noveras_?\n\nThus also, _fiet_ is a perfect verb, and _fit_ a contracted one; and\naccordingly we find in the same Comedian,\n\n  _Quam cara_ SINTQUE _post carendo intelligunt_,\n\nand\n\n  _Quamque attinendi magni dominatus_ SIENT.\n\nIn the same manner I have no objection to _scripsere alii rem_, though I\nam sensible that _scripserunt_ is more grammatical; because I submit with\npleasure to the indulgent laws of custom which delights to gratify the\near. _Idem campus habet_, says Ennius; and in another place, _in templis\nisdem_; _eisdem_, indeed, would have been more grammatical, but not\nsufficiently harmonious; and _iisdem_ would have sounded still worse.\n\nBut we are allowed by custom even to dispense with the rules of etymology\nto improve the sweetness of our language; and I would therefore rather\nsay, _pomeridianas Quadrigas_, than _postmeridianas_; and _mehercule_,\nthan _mehercules_. For the same reason _non scire_ would now be deemed a\nbarbarism, becaule _nescire_ has a smoother sound; and we have likewise\nsubstituted _meridiem_ for _medidiem_, because the latter was offensive to\nthe ear. Even the preposition _ab_, which so frequently occurs in our\ncompound verbs is preserved entire only in the formality of a Journal,\nand, indeed, not always there: in every other sort of language it is\nfrequently altered. Thus we say _amovit_, _abegit_, and _abstulit_; so\nthat you can scarcely determine whether the primitive preposition should\nbe _ab_ or _abs_. We have likewise rejected even _abfugit_, and _abfer_,\nand introduced _aufugit_ and _aufer_ in their stead;--thus forming a new\npreposition, which is to be found in no other verb but these. _Noti_,\n_navi_, and _nari_, have all been words in common use: but when they were\nafterwards to be compounded with the preposition _in_, it was thought more\nharmonious to say _ignoti_, _ignavi_, and _ignari_, than to adhere\nstrictly to the rules of etymology. We likewise say _ex usu_, and _e\nRepublica_; because, in the former case, the preposition is followed by a\nvowel, and, in the latter, it would have sounded harshly without omitting\nthe consonant; as may also be observed in _exegit, edixit, refecit,\nretulit_, and _reddidit_.\n\nSometimes the preposition alters or otherwise affects the first letter of\nthe verb with which it happens to be compounded; as in _subegit,\nsummutavit_, and _sustutit_. At other times it changes one of the\nsubsequent letters; as when we say _insipientem_ for _insapientem_,\n_iniquum_ for inaequum_, _tricipitem_ for _tricapitem_, and _concisum_ for\n_concaesum_: and from hence some have ventured to say _pertisum_ for\n_pertaesum_, which custom has never warranted.\n\nBut what can be more delicate than our changing even the natural quantity\nof our syllables to humour the ear? Thus in the adjectives _inclytus_, and\n_inhumanus_, the first syllable after the preposition is short, whereas\n_insanus_ and _infelix_ have it long; and, in general, those words whose\nfirst letters are the same as in _sapiens_ and _felix_, have their first\nsyllable long in composition, but all others have the same syllable short,\nas _composuit, consuevit, concrepuit, confecit_. Examine these liberties\nby the strict rules of etymology, and they must certainly be condemned;\nbut refer them to the decision of the ear, and they will be instantly\napproved.--What is the reason? Your ear will inform you they have an\neasier sound; and every language must submit to gratify the ear. I myself,\nbecause our ancestors never admitted the aspirate, unless where a syllable\nbegan with a vowel, used to say _pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos_, and\n_Cartaginem_: but some time afterwards, though not very soon, when this\ngrammatical accuracy was wrested from me by the censure of the ear, I\nresigned the mode of language to the vulgar, and reserved the theory to\nmyself. But we still say, without any hesitation, _Orcivios, Matones,\nOtones, coepiones, sepulcra, coronas_, and _lacrymas_, because the ear\nallows it. _Ennius_ always uses _Burrum_, and never _Pyrrhum_; and the\nancient copies of the same author have\n\n  _Vi patefecerunt BRUGES_,\n\nnot _Phryges_; because the Greek vowel had not then been adopted, though\nwe now admit both that and the aspirate:--and, in fact, when we had\nafterwards occasion to say _Phrygum_ and _Phrygibus_, it was rather absurd\nto adopt the Greek letter without adopting their cases, [Footnote: This\npassage, as it stands in the original, appears to me unintelligible: I\nhave therefore taken the liberty to give it a slight alteration.] or at\nleast not to confine it to the nominative; and yet (in the accusative) we\nsay _Phryges_, and _Pyrrhum_, to please the ear. Formerly it was esteemed\nan elegancy, though it would now be considered as a rusticism, to omit the\n_s_ in all words which terminate in _us_, except when they were followed\nby a vowel; and the same elision which is so carefully avoided by the\nmodern Poets, was very far from being reckoned a fault among the ancient:\nfor they made no scruple to say,\n\n  _Qui est OMNIBU' princeps_,\n\nnot, as we do, OMNIBUS princeps; and,\n\n  _Vita illa DIGNU' locoque_,\n\nnot _dignus_.\n\nBut if untaught custom has been so ingenious in the formation of agreeable\nsounds, what may we not expect from the improvements of art and erudition?\nI have, however, been much shorter upon this subject, than I should have\nbeen if I had written upon it professedly: for a comparison of the natural\nand customary laws of language would have opened a wide field for\nspeculation: but I have already enlarged upon it sufficiently, and more,\nperhaps, than the nature of my design required.\n\nTo proceed then;--as the choice of proper matter, and of suitable words to\nexpress it, depends upon the judgment of the Speaker, but that of\nagreeable sounds, and harmonious numbers, upon the decision of the ear;\nand because the former is intended for information, and the latter for\npleasure; it is evident that reason must determine the rules of art in one\ncase, and mere sensation in the other. For we must either neglect the\ngratification of those by whom we wish to be approved, or apply ourselves\nto invent the most likely methods to promote it.\n\nThere are two things which contribute to gratify the ear,--agreeable\n_sounds_, and harmonious _numbers_. We shall treat of numbers in the\nsequel, and at present confine ourselves to _sound_.--Those words, then,\nas we have already observed, are to have the preference which sound\nagreeably;--not such as are exquisitely melodious, like those of the\nPoets, but such as can be found to our purpose in common language.--_Qua\nPontus Helles_ is rather beyond the mark:--but in\n\n  _Auratos aries Colchorum_,\n\nthe verse glitters with a moderate harmony of expression; whereas the\nnext, as ending with a letter which is remarkably flat, is unmusical,\n\n  _Frugifera et ferta arva Alfiae tenet_,\n\nLet us, therefore, rather content ourselves with the agreeable mediocrity\nof our own language, than emulate the splendor of the Greeks; unless we\nare so bigotted to the latter as to hesitate to say with the poet,\n\n  _Qua tempestate Paris Helenam, &c_.\n\nwe might even imitate what follows, and avoid, as far as possible, the\nsmallest asperity of sound,\n\n  _habeo istam ego PERTERRICREPAM_;\n\nor say, with the same author, in another passage,\n\n  _versutiloquas MALITIAS_.\n\nBut our words must have a proper _compass_, as well as be connected\ntogether in an agreeable manner; for this, we have observed, is another\ncircumstance which falls under the notice of the ear. They are confined to\na proper compass, either by certain rules of composition, as by a kind of\nnatural pause, or by the use of particular forms of expression, which have\na peculiar _concinnity_ in their very texture; such as a succession of\nseveral words which have the same termination, or the comparing similar,\nand contrasting opposite circumstances, which will always terminate in a\nmeasured cadence, though no immediate pains should be taken for that\npurpose. Gorgias, it is said, was the first Orator who practised this\nspecies of _concinnity_. The following passage in my Defence of _Milo_ is\nan example.\n\n\"Est enim, Judices, haec non _scripta_, fed _nata_ Lex; quam non\n_didicimus, accepimus, legimus_, verum ex Natura ipsa _arripuimus,\nhausimus, expressimus_; ad quam non _docti_, sed _facti_; non\n_instituti_, sed _imbuti_ simus.\"\n\n\"For this, my Lords, is a law not written upon tables, but impressed upon\nour hearts;--a law which we have not learned, or heard, or read, but\neagerly caught and imbibed from the hand of Nature;--a law to which we\nhave not been train'd, but originally form'd; and with the principles of\nwhich we have not been furnished by education, but tinctured and\nimpregnated from the moment of our birth.\"\n\nIn these forms of expression every circumstance is so aptly referred to\nsome other circumstance, that the regular turn of them does not appear to\nhave been studied, but to result entirely from the sense. The same effect\nis produced by contrasting opposite circumstances; as in the following\nlines, where it not only forms a measured sentence, but a verse:\n\n  _Eam, quam nihil accusas, damnas,_\n\nHer, whom you ne'er accus'd, you now condemn;\n\n(in prose we should say _condemnas_) and again,\n\n  _Bene quam meritam esse autumas, dicis male mereri_,\n\nHer merit, once confess'd, you now deny; and,\n\n  _Id quod scis, prodest nihil; id quod nescis, obest_,\n\nFrom what you've learnt no real good accrues,\nBut ev'ry ill your ignorance pursues.\n\nHere you see the mere opposition of the terms produces a verse; but in\nprosaic composition, the proper form of the last line would be, _quod scis\nnihil prodest; quod nescis multum obest_. This contrasting of opposite\ncircumstances, which the Greeks call an Antithesis, will necessarily\nproduce what is styled _rhetorical metre_, even without our intending it.\nThe ancient Orators, a considerable time before it was practised and\nrecommended by _Isocrates_, were fond of using it; and particularly\n_Gorgias_, whose measured cadences are generally owing to the mere\n_concinnity_ of his language. I have frequently practised it myself; as,\nfor instance, in the following passage of my fourth Invective against\n_Verres_:\n\n\"Conferte _hanc Pacem_ cum _illo Bello_;--_hujus_ Praetoris _Adventum_,\ncum _illius_ Imperatoris _Victoria_;--hujas _Cohortem impuram_, cum illius\n_Exercitu invicto_;--hujus _Libidines_, cum illius _Continentia_;--ab illo\nqui cepit _conditas_; ab hoc, qui constitutas accepit, _captas_ dicetis\nSyracusas.\"\n\n\"Compare this detestable _peace_ with that glorious _war_,--the _arrival_\nof this governor with the _victory_ of that commander,--his _ruffian\nguards_, with the _invincible forces_ of the other;--the brutal luxury of\nthe former, with the modest temperance of the latter;--and you will say,\nthat Syracuse was really _founded_ by him who _stormed_ it, and _stormed_\nby him who received it already _founded_ to his hands.\"--So much, then,\nfor that kind of measure which results from particular forms of\nexpression, and which ought to be known by every Orator.\n\nWe must now proceed to the third thing proposed,--that _numerous_ and\nwell-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible as\nnot to feel it, I cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or what\nresemblance of a human Being! For my part, my ears are always fond of a\ncomplete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant what\nis either defective or redundant. But wherefore do I say _mine_? I have\nfrequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at a\nhappy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should be\nproperly tuned and measured. This, however, is an accomplishment which is\nnot to be met with among the ancients. But to compensate the want of it,\nthey had almost every other perfection: for they had a happy choice of\nwords, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had not\nthe art of harmonizing and completing their periods. This, say some, is\nthe very thing we admire. But what if they should take it into their heads\nto prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, to\nthe rich and finished style of the moderns? The former, I suppose, must be\nagain adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected. But\nthese pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ of\nantiquity. It must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim to\nauthority in matters of imitation, as grey hairs in the precedence of age.\nI myself have as great a veneration for it as any man: nor do I so much\nupbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she was\nmistress of:--especially as I judge the latter to be of far greater\nconsequence than the former. For there is certainly more real merit in a\nmasterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowed\nto excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totally\nunacquainted. This species of composition was not known among the Romans\ntill lately: but the ancients, I believe, would readily have adopted it,\nif it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is now\nmade use of by all Orators of reputation. \"But when _number_, or (as the\nGreeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicial\nand forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound:\nfor people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to sooth\nand captivate their ears, when the Speaker is so over-exact as to attend\nto the harmony of his periods.\" Relying upon the force of this objection,\nthese pretenders are perpetually grating our ears with their broken and\nmutilated sentences; and censure those, without mercy, who have the\npresumption to utter an agreeable and a well-turned period. If, indeed, it\nwas our design to spread a varnish over empty words and trifling\nsentiments, the censure would be just: but when the matter is good, and\nthe words are proper and expressive, what reason can be assigned why we\nshould prefer a limping and imperfect period to one which terminates and\nkeeps pace with the sense? For this invidious and persecuted _metre_ aims\nat nothing more than to adapt the compass of our words to that of our\nthoughts; which is sometimes done even by the ancients,--though generally,\nI believe, by mere accident, and often by the natural delicacy of the ear;\nand the very passages which are now most admired in them, commonly derive\ntheir merit from the agreeable and measured flow of the language.\n\nThis is an art which was in common use among the Greek Orators, about four\nhundred years ago, though it has been but lately introduced among the\nRomans. Ennius, therefore, when he ridicules the inharmonious numbers of\nhis predecessors, might be allowed to say,\n\n  \"_Such verses as the rustic Bards and Satyrs sung_:\"\n\nBut I must not take the same liberty; especially as I cannot say with him,\n\n  _Before this bold adventurer_, &c.\n\n(meaning himself:) nor, as he afterwards exults to the same purpose,\n\n  _I first have dar'd t'unfold_, &c.\n\nfor I have both read and heard several who were almost complete masters of\nthe numerous and measured style I am speaking of: But many, who are still\nabsolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridicule\nthey deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. I must own,\nindeed, that I admire the venerable patterns, of which those persons\npretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects I\nobserve in them: but I can by no means commend the folly of those who copy\nnothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the most\ndistant resemblance in what is truly excellent.\n\nBut if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they pay\nno deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated for\ntheir learning? I will not mention _Isocrates_, and his two scholars,\n_Ephorus_ and _Naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving the\nrichest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent Orators.\nBut who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtle\nand acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and a\ngreater strength of understanding, than _Aristotle_? I may add, who made a\nwarmer opposition to the rising fame of _Isocrates_? And yet _he_, though\nhe forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. His\nhearer _Theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and an\nexcellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and\n_Theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. Who, then, can have\npatience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to oppose\nthemselves to such venerable names as these? The only excuse that can be\nmade for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and are\ntherefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we are\nspeaking of. If this is the case with them (and I cannot think otherwise)\nwill they reject the evidence of their own sensations? Is there nothing\nwhich their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harsh\nand unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothing\nredundant? In dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim against\na verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yet\nthe bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, and\nare totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but Nature\nherself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determine\nthe propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute.\n\nDo you desire, then, my Brutus, that we should discuss the subject more\nfully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the other\nparts of rhetoric? Or shall we content ourselves with the instructions\nwhich _they_ have provided for us? But wherefore do I offer such a\nquestion, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is the\nchief object of your request? We shall proceed, therefore, to give an\naccount of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of\n_prosaic numbers_.\n\nThe admirers of Isocrates place the first invention of numbers among those\nother improvements which do honour to his memory. For observing, say they,\nthat the Orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while the\nPoets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce a\nspecies of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon the\near, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continued\nuniformity of sound. This, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise;\nfor though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in the\nsubject than _Isocrates_; yet the first honour of the invention belongs to\n_Thrasymachus_, whose style (in all his writings which are extant) is\n_numerous_ even to a fault. But _Gorgias_, as I have already remarked, was\nthe original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have a\nkind of spontaneous harmony,--such as a regular succession of words with\nthe same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting opposite\ncircumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them to\nexcess. This, however, is one of the three branches of composition above-\nmentioned. But each of these authors was prior to _Isocrates_: so that the\npreference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not for\nthe _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turn\nof his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are more\ncomposed and sedate. But _Gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, and\nindulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess.\nHe, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he had\nfirst studied in his youth under the same _Gorgias_, who was then in\nThessaly, and in the last decline of life. Nay, as he advanced in years\n(for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and gradually\nrelaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularly\ninforms us in the treatise which he dedicated to Philip of Macedon, in the\nlatter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off that\nservile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--so\nthat he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of his\npredecessors.\n\nHaving thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the first\ncommencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the natural\nsource and origin of it. But this lies so open to observation, that I am\nastonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, by\nmere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, when\nthey had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to make\nit obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chance\nalone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species of\nornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would have\ntaken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. For\nthe ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has a\nnatural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordingly\nfeel that it instantly determines what is either too short or too long,\nand always expects to be gratified with that which is complete and well-\nproportioned. Some expressions it perceives to be imperfect, and\nmutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defrauded\nof it's natural due. In others it discovers an immoderate length, and a\ntedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgusted\nthan with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess is\nalways more offensive than a proportional defect. As versification,\ntherefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of the\near, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so in\nprose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidance\nof nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our language\nshould be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits.\n\nSo much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. We must next\nproceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the nature\nof it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceeds\nthe limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in a\nprofessed and accurate system of the art. For we might here inquire what\nis meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence it\narises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of any\nvariety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when and\nwhere it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear.\nBut as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods of\ndisquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other more\nconcise, and, I might also add, more easy and comprehensible. In the\nformer, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any such\nthing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because no\nfixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long have\nbeen for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend for\nit's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it. Granting,\nhowever, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired of\nwhat kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of the\npoets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which of\nthem may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, and\nsome more, while others object to none. We might then proceed to enquire\n(be the number of them to be admitted, more or less) whether they are\nequally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive,\nand the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether the\ndifferent species of Oratory should be accommodated with their different\nnumbers. If the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we must\nnext enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differently\napplied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they are\nnot to be used so openly in prose as in verse. It might likewise be a\nmatter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by the\nuse of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture of\nour words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression;\n--and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiar\nprovince, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, composition\nthe _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of our\nlanguage,--and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of all\nthe rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to those\nfigurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the Greeks, as I\nhave before observed, are called ([Greek: _schaemaia_],) _attitudes_ or\n_figures_. But to me there appears to be a real distinction between what\nis agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of\n_expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closely\nconnected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerous\nwithout any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently different\nfrom both, as attending entirely either to the _majestic_ or _agreeable_\nsound of our words. Such then are the enquiries which relate to the\n_nature_ of prosaic harmony.\n\nFrom what has been said it is easy to infer that prose is susceptible of\n_number_. Our sensations tell us so: and it would be excessively unfair to\nreject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. Even poetic\nmetre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere natural\ntaste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved and\nmethodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention to\nnature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensations\ngave birth to art. But in verse the use of _number_ is more obvious;\nthough some particular species of it, without the assistance of music,\nhave the air of harmonious prose, and especially the lyric poetry, and\nthat even the best of the kind, which, if divested of the aid of music,\nwould be almost as plain and naked as common language. We have several\nspecimens of this nature in our own poets [Footnote: It must here be\nremarked, that the Romans had no lyric poet before _Horace_, who did not\nflourish till after the times of _Cicero_.]; such as the following line in\nthe tragedy of _Thyestes_,\n\n  \"_Quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tarda senectute_;\n\n\"Whom shall I call thee? who in tardy age,\" &c.;\n\nwhich, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken for\nprose. But the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblance\nto the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you can\nscarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it is\nevident that it is more difficult to adapt numbers to prose than to verse.\n\nThere are two things, however, which give a relish to our language,--well-\nchosen words, and harmonious _numbers_. Words may be considered as the\n_materials_ of language, and it is the business of _number_ to smooth and\npolish them. But as in other cases, what was invented to serve our\nnecessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so,\nin the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted to\nexpress our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the invention\nof _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. Accordingly\n_Herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea of\nprosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random,\nand by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (I mean\nthose of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though they\nhave left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management of\nour style. For what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, for\nthat reason, always first discovered. Metaphors, therefore, and new-made\nand compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowed\nfrom custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from our\ndomestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with common\nlanguage; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till every\nother improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the last\ntouches to the style of Eloquence.\n\nAs it may be remarked that one sort of language is interrupted by frequent\nbreaks and intermissions, while another is flowing and diffusive; it is\nevident that the difference cannot result from the natural sounds of\ndifferent letters, but from the various combinations of long and short\nsyllables, with which our language, being differently blended and\nintermingled, will be either dull and motionless, or lively and fluent; so\nthat every circumstance of this nature must be regulated by _number_. For\nby the assistance of _numbers_, the _period_, which I have so often\nmentioned before, pursues it's course with greater strength and freedom\ntill it comes to a natural pause. It is therefore plain that the style of\nan Orator should be measured and harmonized by _numbers_, though entirely\nfree from verse; but whether these numbers should be the same as those of\nthe poets, or of a different species, is the next thing to be considered.\nIn my opinion there can be no sort of numbers but those of the poets;\nbecause they have already specified all their different kinds with the\nutmost precision; for every number may be comprized in the three following\nvarieties:--_viz_. a _foot_ (which is the measure we apply to numbers)\nmust be so divided, that one part of it will be either equal to the other,\nor twice as long, or equal to three halves of it. Thus, in a _dactyl_\n(breve-macron-macron) (long-short-short) the first syllable, which is the\nformer part of the foot, is equal to the two others, in the _iambic_\n(macron-breve)(short-long) the last is double the first, and in the\n_paeon_ (macron-macron-macron-breve, or breve-macron-macron-macron)(short-\nshort-short-long, or long-short-short-short) one of its parts, which is\nthe long syllable, is equal to two-thirds of the other. These are feet\nwhich are unavoidably incident to language; and a proper arrangement of\nthem will produce a _numerous_ style.\n\nBut it will here be enquired, What numbers should have the preference? To\nwhich I answer, They must all occur promiscuously; as is evident from our\nsometimes speaking verse without knowing it, which in prose is reckoned a\ncapital fault; but in the hurry of discourse we cannot always watch and\ncriticise ourselves. As to _senarian_ and _hipponactic_ [Footnote: Verses\nchiefly composed of iambics] verses, it is scarcely possible to avoid\nthem; for a considerable part, even of our common language, is composed of\n_iambics_. To these, however, the hearer is easily reconciled; because\ncustom has made them familiar to his ear. But through inattention we are\noften betrayed into verses which are not so familiar;--a fault which may\neasily be avoided by a course of habitual circumspection. _Hieronymus_, an\neminent Peripatetic, has collected out of the numerous writings of\nIsocrates about thirty verses, most of them senarian, and some of them\nanapest, which in prose have a more disagreeable effect than any others.\nBut he quotes them with a malicious partiality: for he cuts off the first\nsyllable of the first word in a sentence, and annexes to the last word the\nfirst syllable of the following sentence; and thus he forms what is called\nan _Aristophanean_ anapest, which it is neither possible nor necessary to\navoid entirely. But, this redoubtable critic, as I discovered upon a\ncloser inspection, has himself been betrayed into a senarian or iambic\nverse in the very paragraph in which he censures the composition of\n_Isocrates_.\n\nUpon the whole, it is sufficiently plain that prose is susceptible of\n_numbers_, and that the numbers of an Orator must be the same as those of\na Poet. The next thing to be considered is, what are the numbers which are\nmost suitable to his character, and, for that reason, should occur more\nfrequently than the rest? Some prefer the _Iambic_ (macron-breve)(short-\nlong) as approaching the nearest to common language; for which reason,\nthey say, it is generally made use of in fables and comedies, on account\nof it's resemblance to conversation; and because the dactyl, which is the\nfavourite number of hexameters, is more adapted to a pompous style.\n_Ephorus_, on the other hand, declares for the paeon and the dactyl; and\nrejects the spondee and the trochee (long short). For as the paeon\nhas three short syllables, and the dactyl two, he thinks their shortness\nand celerity give a brisk and lively flow to our language; and that a\ndifferent effect would be produced by the trochee and the spondee, the one\nconsisting of short syllables, and the other of long ones;--so that by\nusing the former, the current of our words would become too rapid, and too\nheavy by employing the latter, losing, in either case, that easy\nmoderation which best satisfies the ear. But both parties seem to be\nequally mistaken: for those who exclude the paeon, are not aware that they\nreject the sweetest and fullest number we have. Aristotle was far from\nthinking as they do: he was of opinion that heroic numbers are too\nsonorous for prose; and that, on the other hand, the iambic has too much\nthe resemblance of vulgar talk:--and, accordingly, he recommends the style\nwhich is neither too low and common, nor too lofty and extravagant, but\nretains such a just proportion of dignity, as to win the attention, and\nexcite the admiration of the hearer. He, therefore, calls the _trochee_\n(which has precisely the same quantity as the _choree_) _the rhetorical\njigg_ [Footnote: _Cordacem appellat_. The _cordax_ was a lascivious dance\nvery full of agitation.]; because the shortness and rapidity of it's\nsyllables are incompatible with the majesty of Eloquence. For this reason\nhe recommends the _paeon_, and says that every person makes use of it,\neven without being sensible when he does so. He likewise observes that it\nis a proper medium between the different feet above-mentioned:--the\nproportion between the long and short syllables, in every foot, being\neither sesquiplicate, duple, or equal.\n\nThe authors, therefore, whom I mentioned before attended merely to the\neasy flow of our language, without any regard to it's dignity. For the\niambic and the dactyl are chiefly used in poetry; so that to avoid\nversifying in prose, we must shun, as much as possible, a continued\nrepetition of either; because the language of prose is of a different\ncast, and absolutely incompatible with verse. As the paeon, therefore, is\nof all other feet the most improper for poetry, it may, for that reason be\nmore readily admitted into prose. But as to _Ephorus_, he did not reflect\nthat even the _spondee_, which he rejects, is equal in time to his\nfavourite dactyl; because he supposed that feet were to be measured not by\nthe quantity, but the number of their syllables;--a mistake of which he is\nequally guilty when he excludes the _trochee_, which, in time and\nquantity, is precisely equal to the iambic; though it is undoubtedly\nfaulty at the end of a period, which always terminates more agreeably in a\nlong syllable than a short one. As to what Aristotle has said of the\n_paeon_, the same has likewise been said by _Theophrastus_ and\n_Theodectes_.\n\nBut, for my part, I am rather of opinion that our language should be\nintermingled and diversified with all the varieties of number; for should\nwe confine ourselves to any particular feet, it would be impossible to\nescape the censure of the hearer; because our style should neither be so\nexactly measured as that of the poets, nor entirely destitute of number,\nlike that of the common people. The former, as being too regular and\nuniform, betrays an appearance of art; and the other, which is as much too\nloose and undetermined, has the air of ordinary talk; so that we receive\nno pleasure from the one, and are absolutely disgusted with the other. Our\nstyle, therefore, as I have just observed, should be so blended and\ndiversified with different numbers, as to be neither too vague and\nunrestrained, nor too openly numerous, but abound most in the paeon (so\nmuch recommended by the excellent author above-mentioned) though still in\nconjunction with many other feet which he entirely omits.\n\nBut we must now consider what number like so many dashes of purple, should\ntincture and enrich the rest, and to what species of style they are each\nof them best adapted. The iambic, then, should be the leading number in\nthose subjects which require a plain and simple style;--the paeon in such\nas require more compass and elevation; and the dactyl is equally\napplicable to both. So that in a discourse of any length and variety, it\nwill be occasionally necessary to blend and intermingle them all. By this\nmeans, our endeavours to modulate our periods, and captivate the ear, will\nbe most effectually concealed; especially, if we maintain a suitable\ndignity both of language and sentiment. For the hearer will naturally\nattend to these (I mean our words and sentiments) and to them alone\nattribute the pleasure he receives; so that while he listens to these with\nadmiration, the harmony of our numbers will escape his notice: though it\nmust indeed be acknowledged that the former would have their charms\nwithout the assistance of the latter. But the flow of our numbers is not\nto be so exact (I mean in prose, for in poetry the case is different) as\nthat nothing may exceed the bounds of regularity; for this would be to\ncompose a poem. On the contrary, if our language neither limps nor\nfluctuates, but keeps an even and a steady pace, it is sufficiently\n_numerous_; and it accordingly derives the title, not from its consisting\nentirely of numbers, but from its near approach to a numerous form. This\nis the reason why it is more difficult to make elegant prose, than to make\nverses; because there are fixed and invariable rules for the latter;\nwhereas nothing is determined in the former, but that the current of our\nlanguage should be neither immoderate nor defective, nor loose and\nunconfined. It cannot be supposed, therefore, to admit of regular beats\nand divisions, like a piece of music; but it is only necessary that the\ngeneral compass and arrangement of our words should be properly restrained\nand limited,--a circumstance which must be left entirely to the decision\nof the ear.\n\nAnother question which occurs before us, is--whether an attention to our\nnumbers should be extended to every part of a sentence, or only to the\nbeginning and the end. Most authors are of opinion that it is only\nnecessary that our periods should end well, and have a numerous cadence.\nIt is true, indeed, that this ought to be principally attended to, but not\nsolely: for the whole compass of our periods ought likewise to be\nregulated, and not totally neglected. As the ear, therefore, always\ndirects it's view to the close of a sentence, and there fixes it's\nattention, it is by no means proper that this should be destitute of\n_number_: but it must also be observed that a period, from it's first\ncommencement, should run freely on, so as to correspond to the conclusion;\nand the whole advance from the beginning with such an easy flow, as to\nmake a natural, and a kind of voluntary pause. To those who have been\nwe'll practised in the art, and who have both written much; and often\nattempted to discourse _extempore_ with the same accuracy which they\nobserve in their writings, this will be far less difficult than is\nimagined. For every sentence is previously formed and circumscribed in the\nmind of the Speaker, and is then immediately attended by the proper words\nto express it, which the same mental faculty (than which there is nothing\nmore lively and expeditious) instantly dismisses, and sends off each to\nits proper post: but, in different sentences, their particular order and\narrangement will be differently terminated; though, in every sentence, the\nwords both in the beginning and the middle of it, should have a constant\nreference to the end. Our language, for instance, must sometimes advance\nwith rapidity, and at other times it's pace must be moderate and easy; so\nthat it will be necessary at the very beginning of a sentence, to resolve\nupon the manner in which you would have it terminate; but we must avoid\nthe least appearance of poetry, both in our numbers, and in the other\nornaments of language; though it is true, indeed, that the labours of the\nOrator must be conducted on the same principles as those of the Poet. For\nin each we have the same materials to work upon, and a similar art of\nmanaging them; the materials being words, and the art of managing them\nrelating, in both cases, to the manner in which they ought to be disposed.\nThe words also in each may be divided into three classes,--the\n__metaphorical_,--the new-coined,--and the antique;--for at present we\nhave no concern with words _proper_:--and three parts may also be\ndistinguished in the art of disposing them; which, I have already\nobserved, are _juncture_, _concinnity_, and _number_. The poets make use\nboth of one and the other more frequently, and with greater liberty than\nwe do; for they employ the _tropes_ not only much oftener, but more boldly\nand openly; and they introduce _antique_ words with a higher taste, and\nnew ones with less reserve. The same may be said in their numbers, in the\nuse of which they are subjected to invariable rules, which they are\nscarcely ever allowed to transgress. The two arts, therefore, are to be\nconsidered neither as wholly distinct, nor perfectly conjoined. This is\nthe reason why our numbers are not to be so conspicuous in prose as in\nverse; and that in prose, what is called a _numerous_ style, does not\nalways become so by the use of numbers, but sometimes either by the\nconcinnity of our language, or the smooth juncture of our words.\n\nTo conclude this head; If it should be enquired, \"What are the numbers to\nbe used in prose?\" I answer, \"_All_; though some are certainly better, and\nmore adapted to it's character than others.\"--If \"_Where_ is their proper\nseat?\"--\"In the different quantity of our syllables:\"--If \"From whence\ntheir _origin_?\"--\"From the sole pleasure of the ear:\"--If \"What the\nmethod of blending and intermingling them?\"--\"This shall be explained in\nthe sequel, because it properly relates to the manner of using them, which\nwas the fourth and last article in my division of the subject.\" If it be\nfarther enquired, \"For what purpose they are employed?\" I answer,--\"To\ngratify the ear:\"--If \"_When_?\" I reply, \"At all times:\"--If \"In what part\nof a sentence?\" \"Through the whole length of it:\"--and if \"What is the\ncircumstance which gives them a pleasing effect?\" \"The same as in poetical\ncompositions, whose metre is regulated by art, though the ear alone,\nwithout the assistance of art, can determine it's limits by the natural\npowers of sensation.\" Enough, therefore, has been said concerning the\nnature and properties of _number_. The next article to be considered is\nthe manner in which our numbers should be employed,--a circumstance which\nrequires to be accurately discussed.\n\nHere it is usual to enquire, whether it is necessary to attend to our\nnumbers through the whole compass of a period, [Footnote: Our author here\ninforms us, that what the Greeks called [Greek: periodos], a _period_, was\ndistinguished among the Romans by the words _ambitus, circuitus,\ncomprehensio, continuatio_, and _circumscriptio_. As I thought this remark\nwould appear much better in the form of a note, than in the body of the\nwork, I have introduced it accordingly.] or only at the beginning or end\nof it, or equally in both. In the next place, as _exact number_ seems to\nbe one thing, and that which is merely _numerous_ another, it might be\nenquired wherein lies the difference. We might likewise consider whether\nthe members of a sentence should all indifferently be of the same length,\nwhatever be the numbers they are composed of;--or whether, on this\naccount, they should not be sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter;--and\nwhen, and for what reasons, they should be made so, and of what numbers\nthey should be composed;--whether of several sorts, or only of one; and\nwhether of equal or unequal numbers;--and upon what occasions either the\none or the other of these are to be used;-and what numbers accord best\ntogether, and in what order; or whether, in this respect, there is no\ndifference between them;--and (which has still a more immediate reference\nto our subject) by what means our style may be rendered _numerous_. It\nwill likewise be necessary to specify the rise and origin of a\n_periodical_ form of language, and what degree of compass should be\nallowed to it. After this, we may consider the members or divisions of a\nperiod, and enquire of how many kinds, and of what different lengths they\nare; and, if they vary in these respects, _where_ and _when_ each\nparticular sort is to be employed: and, in the last place, the _use_ and\napplication of the whole is to be fully explained;--a very extensive\nsubject, and which is capable of being accommodated not only to one, but\nto many different occasions. But without adverting to particulars, we may\ndiscuss the subject at large in such a manner as to furnish a satisfactory\nanswer in all subordinate cases.\n\nOmitting, therefore, every other species of composition, we shall attend\nto that which is peculiar to forensic causes. For in those performances\nwhich are of a different kind, such as history, panegyric, and all\ndiscourses which are merely ornamental, every sentence should be\nconstructed after the exact manner of _Isocrates_ and _Theopompus_; and\nwith that regular compass, and measured flow of language, that our words\nmay constantly run within the limits prescribed by art, and pursue a\nuniform course, till the period is completed. We may, therefore, observe\nthat after the invention of this, _periodical_ form, no writer of any\naccount has made a discourse which was intended as a mere display of\nornament, and not for the service of the Forum, without _squaring_ his\nlanguage, (if I may so express myself) and confining every sentence of it\nto the strictest laws of _number_. For as, in this case, the hearer has no\nmotive to alarm his suspicions against the artifice of the speaker, he\nwill rather think himself obliged to him than otherwise, for the pains he\ntakes to amuse and gratify his ear. But, in forensic causes, this accurate\nspecies of composition is neither to be wholly adopted, nor entirely\nrejected. For if we pursue it too closely, it will create a satiety, and\nour attention to it will be discovered by the most illiterate observer. We\nmay add, it will check the pathos and force of action, restrain the\nsensibility of the Speaker, and destroy all appearance of truth and open\ndealing. But as it will sometimes be necessary to adopt it, we must\nconsider _when_, and _how long_, this ought to be done, and how many ways\nit may be changed and varied.\n\nA _numerous_ style, then, may be properly employed, either when any thing\nis to be commended in a free and ornamental manner, (as in my second\nInvective against _Verres_, where I spoke in praise of _Sicily_, and in my\nSpeech before the Senate, in which I vindicated the honour of my\nconsulship;)--or; in the next place, when a narrative is to be delivered\nwhich requires more dignity than pathos, (as in my fourth Invective, where\nI described the Ceres of the Ennensians, the Diana of the Segestani, and\nthe situation of Syracuse.) It is likewise often allowable to speak in a\nnumerous and flowing style, when a material circumstance is to be\namplified. If I myself have not succeeded in this so well as might be\nwished, I have at least attempted it very frequently; and it is still\nvisible in many of my Perorations, that I have exerted all the talents I\nwas master of for that purpose. But this will always have most efficacy,\nwhen the Speaker has previously possessed himself of the hearer's\nattention, and got the better of his judgment. For then he is no longer\napprehensive of any artifice to mislead him; but hears every thing with a\nfavourable ear, wishes the Orator to proceed, and, admiring the force of\nhis Eloquence, has no inclination to censure it.\n\nBut this measured and numerous flow of language is never to be continued\ntoo long, I will not say in the peroration, (of which the hearer himself\nwill always be a capable judge) but in any other part of a discourse: for,\nexcept in the cases above-mentioned, in which I have shewn it is\nallowable, our style must be wholly confined to those clauses or divisions\nwhich we erroneously call _incisa_ and _membra_; but the Greeks, with more\npropriety, the _comma_ and _colon_ [Footnote: The ancients apply these\nterms to the sense, and not to any points of distinction. A very short\nmember, whether simple or compound, with them is a _comma_; and a longer,\na _colon_; for they have no such term as a _semicolon_. Besides, they call\na very short sentence, whether simple or compound, a _comma_; and one of\nsomewhat a greater length, a _colon_. And therefore, if a person expressed\nhimself either of these ways, in any considerable number of sentences\ntogether, he was said to speak by _commas_, or _colons_. But a sentence\ncontaining more words than will consist with either of these terms, they\ncall a simple _period_; the least compound period with them requiring the\nlength of two colons.\n\nWard's Rhetoric, volume 1st, page 344.]. For it is impossible that the\nnames of things should be rightly applied, when the things themselves are\nnot sufficiently understood: and as we often make use of metaphorical\nterms, either for the sake of ornament, or to supply the place of proper\nones, so in other arts, when we have occasion to mention any thing which\n(through our unacquaintance with it) has not yet received a name, we are\nobliged either to invent a new one, or to borrow it from something\nsimilar. We shall soon consider what it is to speak in _commas_ and\n_colons_, and the proper method of doing it: but we must first attend to\nthe various numbers by which the cadence of our periods should be\ndiversified.\n\nOur numbers will advance more rapidly by the use of short feet, and more\ncoolly and sedately by the use of long ones. The former are best adapted\nto a warm and spirited style, and the latter to sober narratives and\nexplanations. But there are several numbers for concluding a period, one\nof which (called the _dichoree_, or double _choree_, and consisting of a\nlong and a short syllable repeated alternately) is much in vogue with the\nAsiatics; though among different people the same feet are distinguished by\ndifferent names. The _dichoree_, indeed, is not essentially bad for the\nclose of a sentence: but in prosaic numbers nothing can be more faulty\nthan a continued or frequent repetition of the same cadence: as the\n_dichoree_, therefore, is a very sonorous number, we should be the more\nsparing in the use of it, to prevent a satiety. _C. Carbo_, the son of\n_Caius_, and a Tribune of the people, once said in a public trial in which\nI was personally engaged,--\"_O Marce Druse, Patrem appello_;\" where you\nmay observe two _commas_, each consisting of two feet. He then made use of\nthe two following _colons_, each consisting of three feet,--\"_Tu dicere\nsolebas, sacram esse Rempublicam:\"--and afterwards of the period,--\n\"_Quicunque eam violavissent, ab omnibus esse ei poenas persolutas_\" which\nends with a _dichoree_; for it is immaterial whether the last syllable is\nlong or short. He added, \"_Patris dictum sapiens, temeritas filii\ncomprobavit_\" concluding here also with a _dichoree_; which was received\nwith such a general burst of applause, as perfectly astonished me. But was\nnot this the effect of _number_?--Only change the order of the words, and\nsay,--\"_Comprobavit filii temeritas_\" and the spirit of them will be lost,\nthough the word _temeritas_ consists of three short syllables and a long\none, which is the favourite number of Aristotle, from whom, however, I\nhere beg leave to dissent. The words and sentiments are indeed the fame in\nboth cases; and yet, in the latter, though the understanding is satisfied,\nthe ear is not. But these harmonious cadences are not to be repeated too\noften: for, in the first place, our _numbers_ will be soon discovered,--in\nthe next, they will excite the hearer's disgust,--and, at last, be\nheartily despised on account of the apparent facility with which they are\nformed.\n\nBut there are several other cadences which will have a numerous and\npleasing effect: for even the _cretic_, which consists of a long, a short,\nand a long syllable, and it's companion the _paeon_, which is equal to it\nin quantity, though it exceeds it in the number of syllables, is reckoned\na proper and a very useful ingredient in harmonious prose: especially as\nthe latter admits of two varieties, as consisting either of one long and\nthree short syllables, which will be lively enough at the beginning of a\nsentence, but extremely flat at the end;--or of three short syllables and\na long one, which was highly approved of by the ancients at the _close_ of\na sentence, and which I would not wholly reject, though I give the\npreference to others. Even the sober _spondee_ is not to be entirely\ndiscarded; for though it consists of two long syllables, and for that\nreason may seem rather dull and heavy, it has yet a firm and steady step,\nwhich gives it an air of dignity, and especially in the _comma_ and the\n_colon_; so that it sufficiently compensates for the slowness of it's\nmotion, by it's peculiar weight and solemnity. When I speak of feet at the\nclose of a period, I do not mean precisely the last. I would be\nunderstood, at least, to include the foot which immediately precedes it;\nand, in many cases, even the foot before _that_. The _iambic_, therefore,\nwhich consists of a long syllable and a short one, and is equal in time,\nthough not in the number of it's syllables, to a _choree_, which has three\nshort ones; or even the _dactyl_, which consists of one long and two short\nsyllables, will unite agreeably enough with the last foot of a sentence,\nwhen that foot is either a _choree_ or a _spondee_; for it is immaterial\nwhich of them is employed. But the three feet I am mentioning, are neither\nof them very proper for closing a period, (that is, to form the last foot\nof it) unless when a _dactyl_ is substituted for a _cretic_, for you may\nuse either of them at pleasure; because, even in verse, it is of no\nconsequence whether the last syllable is long or short. He, therefore, who\nrecommended the _paeon_, as having the long syllable last, was certainly\nguilty of an oversight; because the quantity of the last syllable is never\nregarded. The _paeon_, however, as consisting of four syllables, is\nreckoned by some to be only a _number_, and not a _foot_. But call it\nwhich you please, it is in general, what all the ancients have represented\nit, (such as _Aristotle, Theophrastus, Theodectes_, and _Euphorus_) the\nfittest of all others both for the beginning and the middle of a period.\nThey are likewise of opinion, that it is equally proper at the end; where,\nin my opinion, the _cretic_ deserves the preference. The _dochimus_, which\nconsists of five syllables, (i.e. a short and two long ones, and a short,\nand a long one, as in _amicos tenes_) may be used indifferently in any\npart of a sentence, provided it occurs but once: for if it is continued or\nrepeated, our attention to our numbers will be discovered, and alarm the\nsuspicion of the hearer. On the other hand, if we properly blend and\nintermingle the several varieties above-mentioned, our design will not be\nso readily noticed; and we shall also prevent that satiety which would\narise from an elaborate uniformity of cadence.\n\nBut the harmony of language does not result entirely from the use of\n_numbers_, but from the _juncture_ and _composition_ of our words; and\nfrom that neatness and _concinnity_ of expression which I have already\nmentioned. By _composition_, I here mean when our words are so judiciously\nconnected as to produce an agreeable sound (independent of _numbers_)\nwhich rather appears to be the effect of nature than of art; as in the\nfollowing passage from Crassus, _Nam ubi lubido dominatur, innocentiae\nleve praesidium est_ [Footnote: In the sentence which is here quoted from\nCrassus, every word which ends with a consonant is immediately succeeded\nby another which begins with a vowel; and, _vice versa_, if the preceding\nword ends with a vowel, the next begins with a consonant.]: for here the\nmere order in which the words are connected, produces a harmony of sound,\nwithout any visible attention of the Speaker. When the ancients,\ntherefore, (I mean _Herodotus_, and _Thucydides_, and all who flourished\nin the same age) composed a numerous and a musical period, it must rather\nbe attributed to the casual order of their words, than to the labour and\nartifice of the writer.\n\nBut there are likewise certain forms of expression, which have such a\nnatural concinnity, as will necessarily have a similar effect to that of\nregular numbers. For when parallel circumstances are compared, or opposite\nones contrasted, or words of the same termination are placed in a regular\nsuccesion, they seldom fail to produce a numerous cadence. But I have\nalready treated of these, and subjoined a few examples; so that we are\nhereby furnished with an additional and a copious variety of means to\navoid the uniformity of cadence above-mentioned; especially as these\nmeasured forms of expression may be occasionally relaxed and dilated.\nThere is, however, a material difference between a style which is merely\n_numerous_, (or, in other words, which has a moderate resemblance to\n_metre_) and that which is entirely composed of _numbers_: the latter is\nan insufferable fault; but our language, without the former, would be\nabsolutely vague, unpolished, and dissipated.\n\nBut as a numerous style (strictly so called) is not frequently, and indeed\nbut seldom admissible in forensic causes,--it seems necessary to enquire,\nin the next place, what are those _commas_ and _colons_ before-mentioned,\nand which, in real causes, should occupy the major part of an Oration. The\n_period_, or complete sentence, is usually composed of four divisions,\nwhich are called _members_, (or _colons_) that it may properly fill the\near, and be neither longer nor shorter than is requisite for that purpose.\nBut it sometimes, or rather frequently happens, that a sentence either\nfalls short of, or exceeds the limits of a regular period, to prevent it\nfrom fatiguing the ear on the one hand, or disappointing it on the other.\nWhat I mean is to recommend an agreeable mediocrity: for we are not\ntreating of verse, but of rhetorical prose, which is confessedly more free\nand unconfined. A full period, then, is generally composed of four parts,\nwhich may be compared to as many hexameter verses, each of which have\ntheir proper points, or particles of continuation, by which they are\nconnected so as to form a perfect period. But when we speak by _colons_,\nwe interupt their union, and, as often as occasion requires (which indeed\nwill frequently be the case) break off with ease from this laboured and\nsuspicious flow of language; but yet nothing should be so numerous in\nreality as that which appears to be least so, and yet has a forcible\neffect. Such is the following passage in Crassus:--\"_Missos faciant\npatronos; ipsi prodeant_.\" \"Let them dismiss their patrons: let them\nanswer for themselves.\" Unless \"_ipsi prodeant_\" was pronounced after a\npause, the hearer must have discovered a complete iambic verse. It would\nhave had a better cadence in prose if he had said \"_prodeant ipsi_.\" But I\nam only to consider the species, and not the cadence of the sentence. He\ngoes on, \"_Cur clandestinis consiliis nos oppugnant? cur de perfugis\nnostris copias comparant contra nos_?\" \"Why do they attack us by\nclandestine measures? why do they collect forces against us from our own\ndeserters?\" In the former passage there are two _commas_: in the latter he\nfirst makes use of the _colon_, and afterwards of the _period_: but the\nperiod is not a long one, as only consisting of two _colons_, and the\nwhole terminates in _spondees_. In this manner Crassus generally expressed\nhimself; and I much approve his method. But when we speak either in\n_commas_, or _colons_, we should be very attentive to the harmony of their\ncadence: as in the following instance.--\"_Domus tibi deerat? at habebas.\nPecunia superabat? at egebas_.\" \"Was you without a habitation? You had a\nhouse of your own. Was your pocket well provided? You was not master of a\nfarthing.\" These are four _commas_; but the two following members are both\n_colons_;--\"_Incurristi omens in columnas, in alienos insanus insanisti_.\"\n\n\"You rushed like a madman upon your best supporters; you vented your fury\non your enemies withput mercy.\" The whole is afterwards supported by a\nfull period, as by a solid basis;--\"Depressam, caecam, jacentem domum,\npluris quam te, et fortunas tuas aestimasti.\" \"You have shewn more regard\nto an unprosperous, an obscure, and a fallen family, than to your own\nsafety and reputation.\" This sentence ends with a _dichoree_, but the\npreceeding one in a _double spondee_. For in those sentences which are to\nbe used like daggers for close-fighting, their very shortness makes our\nnumbers less exceptionable. They frequently consist of a single number;--\ngenerally of _two_, with the addition perhaps of half a foot to each: and\nvery seldom of more than three. To speak in _commas_ or _colons_ has a\nvery good effect in real causes; and especially in those parts of an\nOration where it is your business either to prove or refute: as in my\nsecond defence of Cornelius, where I exclaimed, \"O callidos homines! O rem\nexcogitatam! O ingenia metuenda!\" \"What admirable schemers! what a curious\ncontrivance! what formidable talents!\" Thus far I spoke in _colons_; and\nafterwards by _commas_; and then returned to the colon, in \"_Testes dare\nvolumus_,\" \"We are willing to produce our witnesses.\" This was succeeded\nby the following _period_, consisting of two _colons_, which is the\nshortest that can be formed,--\"_Quem, quaeso, nostrum sesellit ita vos\nesse facturos?_\" \"Which of us, think you, had not the sense to foresee\nthat you would proceed in this manner?\"\n\nThere is no method of expressing ourselves which, if properly timed, is\nmore agreeable or forcible, than these rapid turns, which are completed in\ntwo or three words, and sometimes in a single one; especially, when they\nare properly diversified, and intermingled here and there with a\n_numerous_ period; which _Egesias_ avoids with such a ridiculous nicety,\nthat while he affects to imitate _Lysias_ (who was almost a second\n_Demosthenes_) he seems to be continually cutting capers, and clipping\nsentence after sentence. He is as frivolous in his sentiments as in his\nlanguage: so that no person who is acquainted with his writings, need to\nseek any farther for a coxcomb. But I have selected several examples from\nCrassus, and a few of my own, that any person, who is so inclined, may\nhave an opportunity of judging with his own ears, what is really\n_numerous_, as well in the shortest as in any other kind of sentences.\n\nHaving, therefore, treated of a _numerous_ style more copiously than any\nauthor before me, I shall now proceed to say something of it's _utility_.\nFor to speak handsomely, and like an Orator (as no one, my Brutus, knows\nbetter than yourself) is nothing more than to express the choicest\nsentiments in the finest language. The noblest thoughts will be of little\nservice to an orator, unless he is able to communicate them in a correct\nand agreeable style: nor will the splendor of our expressions appear to a\nproper advantage, unless they are carefully and judiciously ranged. Permit\nme to add, that the beauty of both will be considerably heightened by the\nharmony of our numbers:--such numbers (for I cannot repeat it too often)\nas are not only not cemented together, like those of the poets, but which\navoid all appearance of metre, and have as little resemblance to it as\npossible; though it is certainly true that the numbers themselves are the\nsame, not only of the Poets and Orators, but of all in general who\nexercise the faculty of speech, and, indeed, of every instrument which\nproduces a sound whose time can be measured by the ear. It is owing\nentirely to the different arrangement of our feet that a sentence assumes\neither the easy air of prose, or the uniformity of verse. Call it,\ntherefore, by what name you please (_Composition, Perfection_, or\n_Number_) it is a necessary restraint upon our language; not only (as\n_Aristotle_ and _Theophrastus_ have observed) to prevent our sentences\n(which should be limited neither by the breath of the speaker, nor the\npointing of a transcriber, but by the sole restraint of _number_) from\nrunning on without intermission like a babbling current of water; but\nchiefly, because our language, when properly measured, has a much greater\neffect than when it is loose and unconfined. For as Wrestlers and\nGladiators, whether they parry or make an assault, have a certain grace in\ntheir motions, so that every effort which contributes to the defence or\nthe victory of the combatants, presents an agreeable attitude to the eye:\nso the powers of language can neither give nor evade an important blow,\nunless they are gracefully exerted. That style, therefore, which is not\nregulated by _numbers_, is to me as unbecoming as the motions of a\nGladiator who has not been properly trained and exercised: and so far is\nour language from being _enervated_ by a skilful arrangement of our words\n(as is pretended by those who, for want either of proper instructors,\ncapacity, or diligence, have not been able to attain it) that, on the\ncontrary, without this, it is impossible it should have any force or\nefficacy.\n\nBut it requires a long and attentive course of practice to avoid the\nblemishes of those who were unacquainted with this numerous species of\ncomposition, so as not to transpose our words too openly to assist the\ncadence and harmony of our periods; which _L. Caelius Antipater_, in the\nIntroduction to his Punic War, declares he would never attempt, unless\nwhen compelled by necessity. \"_O virum simplicem_,\" (says he, speaking of\nhimself) \"_qui nos nihil celat; sapientem, qui serviendum necessitati\nputet_.\" \"O simple man, who has not the skill his art to conceal; and yet\nto the rigid laws of necessity he has the wisdom to submit.\" But he was\ntotally unskilled in composition. By us, however, both in writing and\nspeaking, necessity is never admitted as a valid plea; for, in fact, there\nis no such thing as an absolute constraint upon the order and arrangement\nof our words; and, if there was, it is certainly unnecessary to own it.\nBut _Antipater_, though he requests the indulgence of Laelius, to whom he\ndedicates his work, and attempts to excuse himself, frequently transposes\nhis words without contributing in the least either to the harmony, or\nagreeable cadence of his periods.\n\nThere are others, and particularly the _Asiatics_, who are such slaves to\n_number_, as to insert words which have no use nor meaning to fill up the\nvacuities in a sentence. There are likewise some who, in imitation of\n_Hegesias_ (a notorious trifler as well in this as in every other respect)\ncurtail and mince their numbers, and are thus betrayed into the low and\npaltry style of the Sicilians. Another fault in composition is that which\noccurs in the speeches of _Hierocles_ and _Menecles_, two brothers, who\nmay be considered as the princes of Asiatic Eloquence, and, in my opinion,\nare by no means contemptible: for though they deviate from the style of\nnature, and the strict laws of Atticism, yet they abundantly compensate\nthe defect by the richness and fertility of their language. But they have\nno variety of cadence, and their sentences are almost always terminated in\nthe same manner. He therefore, who carefully avoids these blemishes, and\nwho neither transposes his words too openly,--nor inserts any thing\nsuperfluous or unmeaning to fill up the chasms of a period,--nor curtails\nand clips his language, so as to interrupt and enervate the force of it,--\nnor confines himself to a dull uniformity of cadence,--_he_ may justly be\nsaid to avoid the principal and most striking defects of prosaic harmony.\nAs to its positive graces, these we have already specified; and from\nthence the particular blemishes which are opposite to each, will readily\noccur to the attentive reader.\n\nOf what consequence it is to regulate the structure of our language, may\nbe easily tried by selecting a well-wrought period from some Orator of\nreputation, and changing the arrangement of the words; [Footnote:\nProfessor _Ward_ has commented upon an example of this kind from the\npreface to the Vth volume of the Spectator:--\"_You have acted in so much\nconsistency with yourself, and promoted the interests of your country in\nso uniform a manner; that even those, who would misrepresent your generous\ndesigns for the public good, cannot but approve the steadiness and\nintredipity, with which you pursue them_.\" I think, says the Doctor, this\nmay be justly esteemed an handsome period. It begins with ease, rises\ngradually till the voice is inflected, then sinks again, and ends with a\njust cadency, And perhaps there is not a word in it, whole situation would\nbe altered to an advantage. Let us now but shift the place of one word in\nthe last member, and we shall spoil the beauty of the whole sentence. For\nif, instead of saying, as it now stands, _cannot but approve the\nsteadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_; we put it thus,\n_cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity which you pursue them\nwith_; the cadency will be flat and languid, and the harmony of the period\nentirely lost. Let us try it again by altering the place of the two last\nmembers, which at present stand in this order, _that even those who would\nmisrepresent your generous designs for the public good, cannot but approve\nthe steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_. Now if the\nformer member be thrown last, they will run thus, _that even those cannot\nbut approve the steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them,\nwho would misrepresent your generous designs for the public good_. Here\nthe sense is much obscured by the inversion of the relative _them_, which\nought to refer to something that went before, and not to the words\n_generous designs_, which in this situation of the members are placed\nafter it. WARD'S Rhetoric. Vol. 1, p. 338, 339.] the beauty of it would\nthen be mangled and destroyed. Suppose, for instance, we take the\nfollowing passage from my Defence of _Cornelius,--\"Neque me divitae\nmovent, quibus omnes Africanos et Laelios, multi venalitii mercatoresque\nsuperarunt._\" \"Nor am I dazzled by the splendor of wealth, in which many\nretailers, and private tradesmen have outvied all the _Africani_ and the\n_Lelii_\" Only invert the order a little, and say,--\"_Multi superarunt\nmercatores, venatitiique_,\" and the harmony of the period will be loft.\nTry the experiment on the next sentence;--\"_Neque vestes, aut celatum\naurum, & argentum, quo nostros veteres Marcellos, Maximosque multi eunuchi\ne Syria Egyptoque vicerunt_:\" Nor do. I pay the least regard to costly\nhabits, or magnificent services of plate, in which many eunuchs, imported\nfrom Syria and Egypt, have far surpassed the illustrious _Marcelli_, and\nthe _Maximi_. Alter the disposition of the words into, \"_vicerunt eunuchi\ne Syria, Egyptoque,_\" and the whole beauty of the sentence will be\ndestroyed. Take a third passage from the same paragraph;--\"_Neque vero\nornamenta ista villarum, quibus Paulum & L. Mummium, qui rebus his urbem,\nItaliamque omnem reserserunt, ab aliquo video perfacile Deliaco aut Syro\npotuisse superari:\"--\"Nor the splendid ornaments of a rural villa, in\nwhich I daily behold every paltry Delian and Syrian outvying the dignity\nof Paulus and Lucius Mummius, who, by their victories, supplied the whole\ncity, and indeed every part of Italy, with a super- fluity of these\nglittering trifles!\" Only change the latter part of the sentence into,--\n\"_potuisse superari ab aliquo Syro aut Deliaco,_\" and you will see, though\nthe meaning and the words are still the same, that, by making this slight\nalteration in the order, and breaking the form of the period, the whole\nforce and spirit of it will be lost.\n\nOn the other hand, take one of the broken sentences of a writer unskilled\nin composition, and make the smallest alteration in the arrangement of the\nwords,--and that which before was loose and disordered, will assume a\njust and a regular form. Let us, for instance, take the following passage\nfrom the speech of Gracchus to the Censors;--\"_Abesse non potest, quin\nejusdem hominis fit, probos improbare, qui improbos probet_;\" \"There is no\npossibility of doubting that the same person who is an enemy to virtue,\nmust be a friend to vice.\" How much better would the period have\nterminated if he had said,--\"_quin ejusdem hominis fit, qui improbos\nprobet, probos improbare_!\"--\"that the same person who is a friend to\nvice, must be an enemy to virtue!\" There is no one who would object to the\nlast:--nay, it is impossible that any one who was able to speak thus,\nshould have been willing to express himself otherwise. But those who have\npretended to speak in a different manner, had not skill enough to speak as\nthey ought; and for that reason, truly, we must applaud them for their\n_Attic_ taste;--as if the great DEMOSTHENES could speak like an _Asiatic_\n[Footnote: Quasi vero Trallianus fuerit Demosthenes.] _Trallianus_\nsignifies an inhabitant of _Tralles_, a city in the lesser Asia, between\n_Caria_ and _Lydia_. The Asiatics, in the estimation of Cicero, were not\ndistinguished by the delicacy of their taste.,--that Demosthenes, whose\nthunder would have lost half it's force, if it's flight had not been\naccelerated by the rapidity of his numbers.\n\nBut if any are better pleased with a broken and dissipated style, let them\nfollow their humour, provided they condescend to counterbalance it by the\nweight, and dignity of their sentiments: in the same manner, as if a\nperson should dash to pieces the celebrated shield of _Phidias_, though he\nwould destroy the symmetry of the whole, the fragments would still retain\ntheir separate beauty;--or, as in the history of Thucydides, though we\ndiscover no harmony in the structure of his periods, there are yet many\nbeauties which excite our admiration. But these triflers, when they\npresent us with one of their rugged and broken sentences, in which there\nis neither a thought, nor word, but what is low and puerile, appear to me\n(if I may venture on a comparison which is not indeed very elevated, but\nis strictly applicable to the case in hand) to have untied a besom, that\nwe may contemplate the scattered twigs. If, however, they wish to convince\nus that they really despise the species of composition which I have now\nrecommended, let them favour us with a few lines in the taste of\nIsocrates, or such as we find in the orations of _Aeschines_ and\n_Demosthenes_. I will then believe they decline the use of it, not from a\nconsciousness of their inability to put it in practice, but from a real\nconviction of it's futility; or, at least, I will engage to find a person,\nwho, on the same condition, will undertake either to speak or write, in\nany language they may please to fix upon, in the very manner they propose.\nFor it is much easier to disorder a good period, than to harmonize a bad\none.\n\nBut, to speak my whole meaning at once, to be scrupulously attentive to\nthe measure and harmony of our periods, without a proper regard to our\nsentiments, is absolute madness:--and, on the other hand, to speak\nsensibly and judiciously, without attending to the arrangement of our\nwords, and the regularity of our periods, is (at the best) to speak very\nawkwardly; but it is such a kind of awkwardness that those who are guilty\nof it, may not only escape the title of blockheads, but pass for men of\ngood-sense and understanding;--a character which those speakers who are\ncontented with it, are heartily welcome to enjoy! But an Orator who is\nexpected not only to merit the approbation, but to excite the wonder, the\nacclamations, and the plaudits of those who hear him, must excel in every\npart of Eloquence, and be so thoroughly accomplished, that it would be a\ndisgrace to him that any thing should be either seen or heard with greater\npleasure than himself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus, my Brutus, I have given you my opinion of a complete Orator; which\nyou are at liberty either to adopt or reject, as your better judgment\nshall incline you. If you see reason to think differently, I shall have no\nobjection to it; nor so far indulge my vanity as to presume that my\nsentiments, which I have so freely communicated in the present Essay, are\nmore just and accurate than yours. For it is very possible not only that\nyou and I may have different notions, but that what appears true even to\nmyself at one time, may appear otherwise at another. Nor only in the\npresent case, which be determined by the taste of the multitude, and the\ncapricious pleasure of the ear (which are, perhaps, the most uncertain\njudges we can fix upon)--but in the most important branches of science,\nhave I yet been able to discover a surer rule to direct my judgment, than\nto embrace that which has the greatest appearance of probability: for\n_Truth_ is covered with too thick a veil to be distinguished to a\ncertainty. I request, therefore, if what I have advanced should not have\nthe happiness to merit your approbation, that you will be so much my\nfriend as to conclude, either that the talk I have attempted is\nimpracticable, or that my unwillingness to disoblige you has betrayed me\ninto the rash presumption of undertaking a subject to which my abilities\nare unequal.","title":"Cicero's Brutus or History of Famous Orators; also His Orator, or Accomplished Speaker.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":79339}