A Dialogue Concerning Oratory Or The Causes Of Corrupt Eloquence Part 11

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

[b] Lucius Licinius Cra.s.sus and Domitius aen.o.barbus were censors A.U.C.

662. Cra.s.sus himself informs us, that, for two years together, a new race of men, called Rhetoricians, or masters of eloquence, kept open schools at Rome, till he thought fit to exercise his censorian authority, and by an edict to banish the whole tribe from the city of Rome; and this, he says, he did, not, as some people suggested, to hinder the talents of youth from being cultivated, but to save their genius from being corrupted, and the young mind from being confirmed in shameless ignorance. Audacity was all the new masters could teach; and this being the only thing to be acquired on that stage of impudence, he thought it the duty of a Roman censor to crush the mischief in the bud. _Latini (sic diis placet) hoc biennio magistri dicendi ext.i.terunt; quos ego censor edicto meo sustuleram; non quo (ut nescio quos dicere aiebant) acui ingenia adolescentium nollem, sed, contra, ingenia obtundi nolui, corroborari impudentiam. Hos vero novos magistros nihil intelligebam posse docere, nisi ut auderent. Hoc c.u.m unum traderetur, et c.u.m impudentiae ludus esset, putavi esse censoris, ne longius id serperet, providere._ _De Orat._ lib. iii. s. 93 and 94.

Aulus Gellius mentions a former expulsion of the rhetoricians, by a decree of the senate, in the consulship of Fannius Strabo and Valerius Messala, A.U.C. 593. He gives the words of the decree, and also of the edict, by which the teachers were banished by Cra.s.sus, several years after. See _A. Gellius, Noctes Atticae_, lib. xv. cap. 2. See also Suetonius, _De Claris Rhet._ s. 1.

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

3 and 4.

[d] Here unfortunately begins a chasm in the original. The words are, _c.u.m ad veros judices ventum est, * * * * rem cogitare * * * * nihil humile, nihil abjectum eloqui poterat._ This is unintelligible. What follows from the words _magna eloquentia sicut flamma_, palpably belongs to Maternus, who is the last speaker in the Dialogue. The whole of what Secundus said is lost. The expedient has been, to divide the sequel between Secundus and Maternus; but that is mere patch-work.

We are told in the first section of the Dialogue, that the several persons present spoke their minds, each in his turn a.s.signing different but probable causes, and at times agreeing on the same.

There can, therefore, be no doubt but Secundus took his turn in the course of the enquiry. Of all the editors of Tacitus, Brotier is the only one who has adverted to this circ.u.mstance. To supply the loss, as well as it can now be done by conjecture, that ingenious commentator has added a Supplement, with so much taste, and such a degree of probability, that it has been judged proper to adopt what he has added. The thread of the discourse will be unbroken, and the reader, it is hoped, will prefer a regular continuity to a mere vacant s.p.a.ce.

The inverted comma in the margin of the text [transcriber's note: not used, but numbered with decimal rather than Roman numerals] will mark the supplemental part, as far as section 36, where the original proceeds to the end of the Dialogue. The sections of the Supplement will be marked, for the sake of distinction, with figures, instead of the Roman numeral letters.

SUPPLEMENT.

Section 1.

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

Section 2.

[a] The means by which an orator is nourished, formed, and raised to eminence, are here enumerated. These are the requisites, that lead to that distinguished eloquence, which is finely described by Petronius, when he says, a sublime oration, but sublime within due bounds, is neither deformed with affectation, nor turgid in any part, but, depending on truth and simplicity, rises to unaffected grandeur.

_Grandis, et, ut ita dicam, pudica oratio, non est maculosa, nec turgida, sed naturali pulchritudine exsurgit._ Petronius, _in Satyrico_, s. 2.

Section 3.

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

Section 4.

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

c.u.m s.e.xaginta numeret Ca.s.selius annos; Ingeniosus h.o.m.o est: quando disertus erit?

Lib. vii. epig. 8.

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

Section 5.

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

Menagiana_, tom. ii. p. 1.

Section 6.

[a] This charge against Seneca is by no means new. Quintilian was his contemporary; he saw and heard the man, and, in less than twenty years after his death, p.r.o.nounced judgement against him. In the conclusion of the first chapter of his tenth book, after having given an account of the Greek and Roman authors, he says, he reserved Seneca for the last place, because, having always endeavoured to counteract the influence of a bad taste, he was supposed to be influenced by motives of personal enmity. But the case was otherwise. He saw that Seneca was the favourite of the times, and, to check the torrent that threatened the ruin of all true eloquence, he exerted his best efforts to diffuse a sounder judgement. He did not wish that Seneca should be laid aside: but he could not in silence see him preferred to the writers of the Augustan age, whom that writer endeavoured to depreciate, conscious that, having chosen a different style, he could not hope to please the taste of those who were charmed with the authors of a former day. But Seneca was still in fashion; his partisans continued to admire, though it cannot be said that they imitated him. He fell short of the ancients, and they were still more beneath their model. Since they were content to copy, it were to be wished that they had been able to vie with him. He pleased by his defects, and the herd of imitators chose the worst. They acquired a vicious manner, and flattered themselves that they resembled their master. But the truth is, they disgraced him. Seneca, it must be allowed, had many great and excellent qualities; a lively imagination, vast erudition, and extensive knowledge. He frequently employed others to make researches for him, and was often deceived. He embraced all subjects; in his philosophy, not always profound, but a keen censor of the manners, and on moral subjects truly admirable. He has brilliant pa.s.sages, and beautiful sentiments; but the expression is in a false taste, the more dangerous, as he abounds with delightful vices. You would have wished that he had written with his own imagination, and the judgement of others. To sum up his character; had he known how to rate little things, had he been above the petty ambition of always shining, had he not been fond of himself, had he not weakened his force by minute and dazzling sentences, he would have gained, not the admiration of boys, but the suffrage of the judicious. At present he may be read with safety by those who have made acquaintance with better models. His works afford the fairest opportunity of distinguishing the beauties of fine writing from their opposite vices.

He has much to be approved, and even admired: but a just selection is necessary, and it is to be regretted that he did not choose for himself. Such was the judgement of Quintilian: the learned reader will, perhaps, be glad to have the whole pa.s.sage in the author's words, rather than be referred to another book. _Ex industria Senecam, in omni genere eloquentiae versatum, distuli, propter vulgatam falso de me opinionem, qua d.a.m.nare eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditus.

Quod, accidit mihi, dum corruptum, et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora judicia contendo. Tum autem solus hic fere in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quem non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non dest.i.terat incessere, c.u.m, diversi sibi conscius generis, placere se in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent, diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis, quam imitabantur; tantumque ab illo defluebant, quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum, pares, aut saltem proximos, illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia, et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat. Deinde c.u.m se jactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cujus et multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt; ingenium facile et copiosum; plurimum studii; et multarum rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab iis, quibus inquirenda quaedam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractavit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam; In philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator. Multa in eo claraeque sententiae; multa etiam morum gratia legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis. Velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno judicio. Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum concup.i.s.set, si non omnia sua ama.s.set; si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. Verum sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest utrimque judicium. Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curae sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset._ Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance, traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette: _Barba et coma nitidos, de capsula totos_; he adds, that such affected finery is not the true ornament of a man. _Non est ornamentum virile, concinnitas._ And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth and dignified simplicity. The marvellous was with him better than the natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's _Belles Lettres_, vol.

i. _sur le Gout_. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was, undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds.

His fault was, exuberance. _Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere_, says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is witty, he cannot be an object of compa.s.sion. Does he write letters to and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic.

With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and manner infected every branch of literature. The tribe of imitators had not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste goes round from one to another. _Haec vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub quo tunc eloquentia est: caeteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt._ Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age.

_Ingenium amnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum._ He adopted the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons, the Abbe Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that, during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never revived.

Section 7.

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

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

86.

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

Section 8.

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

[b] This anecdote is also related by Pliny, in the following manner: Quintilian, his preceptor, told him that one day, when he attended Domitius Afer in a cause before the _centumviri_, a sudden and outrageous noise was heard from the adjoining court. Afer made a pause; the disturbance ceased, and he resumed the thread of his discourse. He was interrupted a second and a third time. He asked, who was the advocate that occasioned so much uproar? Being told, that Licinius was the person, he addressed himself to the court in these words: _Centumvirs! all true eloquence is now at an end. Ex Quintiliano, praeceptore meo, audisse memini: narrabat ille, a.s.sectabar Domitium Afrum, c.u.m apud centumviros diceret graviter et lente (hoc enim illi actionis genus erat), audiit ex proximo immodic.u.m insolitumque clamorem; admiratus reticuit; ubi silentium factum est, repet.i.t quod abruperat; iterum clamor, iterum reticuit; et post silentium, cpit idem tertio. Novissime quis diceret quaesivit.

Responsum est, Licinius. Tum intermissa causa_, CENTUMVIRI, _inquit_, HOC ARTIFICIUM PERIIT. Lib. ii. ep. 14. Domitius Afer has been mentioned, s. xiii. note [d]. To what is there said of him may be added a fact related by Quintilian, who says that Afer, when old and superannuated, still continued at the bar, exhibiting the decay of genius, and every day diminishing that high reputation which he once possessed. Hence men said of him, he had rather _decline_ than _desist_. _Malle eum deficere, quam desinere._ Quint. lib. xii. cap.

11.

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

epist. 14.

[d] The whole account of the trade of puffing is related in the Dialogue, on the authority of Pliny, who tells us that those wretched sycophants had two nick-names; one in Greek, [Greek: Sophokleis], and the other in Latin, LAUDICaeNI; the former from _sophos_, the usual exclamation of applause, as in Martial: _Quid tam grande sophos clamat tibi turba, togata_; the Latin word importing _parasites_ who sold their praise for a supper. _Inde jam non inurbane [Greek: Sophokleis]

vocantur; iisdem nomen Latinum impositum est_, LAUDICaeNI. _Et tamen crescit indies fditas utraque lingua notata._ Lib. ii. epist. 14.

Section 10.

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

Section 11.

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

Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe juventae, Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae.

Lib. ii. epig. 90.

It is generally supposed that he was a native of _Calaguris_ (now _Calahorra_), a city in Spain, rendered famous by the martial spirit of Sertorius, who there stood a siege against Pompey. Vossius, however, thinks that he was born a Roman; and GEDOYN, the elegant translator mentioned section 6. note [a], accedes to that opinion, since Martial does not claim him as his countryman. The same writer says, that it is still uncertain when Quintilian was born, and when he died; but, after a diligent enquiry, he thinks it probable that the great critic was born towards the latter end of Tiberius; and, of course, when Domitius Afer died in the reign of Nero, A.U.C. 812, A.D.

59, that he was then two and twenty. His Inst.i.tutions of an Orator were written in the latter end of Domitian, when Quintilian, as he himself says, was far advanced in years. The time of his death is no where mentioned, but it probably was under Nerva or Trajan. It must not be dissembled, that this admirable author was not exempt from the epidemic vice of the age in which he lived. He flattered Domitian, and that strain of adulation is the only blemish in his work. The love of literature may be said to have been his ruling pa.s.sion; but, in his estimation, learning and genius are subordinate to honour, truth, and virtue.