A Dialogue Concerning Oratory Or The Causes Of Corrupt Eloquence Part 12

Section 12.

[a] Maternus, without contradicting Messala or Secundus, gives his opinion, viz. that the decline of eloquence, however other causes might conspire, was chiefly occasioned by the ruin of a free const.i.tution. To this he adds another observation, which seems to be founded in truth, as we find that, since the revival of letters, Spain has produced one CERVANTES; France, one MOLIERE; England, one SHAKSPEARE, and one MILTON.

Section 13.

[a] Examples of short, abrupt, and even sublime speeches out of the mouth of Barbarians, might, if the occasion required it, be produced in great abundance. Mr. Locke has observed, that the humours of a people may be learned from their usage of words. Seneca has said the same, and, in epistle cxiv. has explained himself on the subject with acute reasoning and beautiful ill.u.s.tration. The whole letter merits the attention of the judicious critic. The remainder of this, and the whole of the following section, serve to enforce the proposition of the speaker, viz. that Roman eloquence died with public liberty. The Supplement ends here. The original text is resumed in the next section, and proceeds unbroken to the end of the Dialogue.

Section x.x.xVI.

[a] When great and powerful eloquence is compared to a flame, that must be supported by fresh materials, it is evident that the sentence is a continuation, not the opening of a new argument. It has been observed, and it will not be improper to repeat, that the two former speakers (Messala and Secundus) having stated, according to their way of thinking, the causes of corrupt eloquence, Maternus, as was promised in the outset of the Dialogue, now proceeds to give another reason, and, perhaps, the strongest of all; namely, the alteration of the government from the old republican form to the absolute sway of a single ruler.

[b] The colonies, the provinces, and the nations that submitted to the Roman arms, had their patrons in the capital, whom they courted with a.s.siduity. It was this mark of distinction that raised the ambitious citizen to the first honours in the state. To have a number of clients, as well at home as in the most important colonies, was the unremitting desire, the study, and constant labour of all who aimed at pre-eminence; insomuch that, in the time of the old republic, the men who wished to be distinguished patrons, impoverished, and often ruined their families, by their profusion and magnificence. They paid court to the common people, to the provinces, and states in alliance with Rome; and, in their turn, they received the homage of their clients.

See _Annals_, b. iii. s. 55.

[c] We read in Quintilian, that oral testimony, and depositions signed by the witnesses, were both in use in his time. Written evidence, he observes, was easily combated; because the witness who chose to speak in the presence of a few who signed his attestation, might be guilty of a violation of truth with greater confidence; and besides, not being cited to speak, his being a volunteer in the cause was a circ.u.mstance against him, since it shewed that he acted with ill-will to the opposite party. With regard to the witness who gives his testimony in open court, the advocate has more upon his hands: he must press him with questions, and in a set speech observe upon his evidence. He must also support his own witnesses, and, therefore, must draw up two lines of battle. _Maximus patronis circa testimonia sudor est. Ea dic.u.n.tur aut per tabulas, aut a praesentibus. Simplicior contra tabulas pugna. Nam et minus obst.i.tisse videtur pudor inter paucos signatores, et pro diffidentia premitur absentia. Tacita praeterea quadam significatione refragatur his omnibus, quod nemo per tabulas dat testimonium, nisi sua voluntate; quo ipso non esse amic.u.m ei se, contra quem dicit, fatetur. c.u.m praesentibus ver ingens dimicatio est: ideoque velut duplici contra eos, proque his, acie confligitur, actionum et interrogationum._ Quint. lib. v. cap. 7.

Section x.x.xVII.

[a] For an account of Mucia.n.u.s, see section 7, note c [transcriber's note: reference does not match]; also _the History_, b. ii. s. 5.

Suetonius relates that Vespasian, having undertaken to restore three thousand brazen plates, which had perished in the conflagration of the capital (see the _Hist. of Tacitus_, b. iii. s. 71), ordered a diligent search to be made for copies, and thereby furnished the government with a collection of curious and ancient records, containing the decrees of the senate, acts of the commons, and treaties of alliance, almost from the building of the city. Suetonius, _Life of Vespasian_, s. 8. This, with the addition of speeches and letters composed by men of eminence, was, most probably, the collection published by Mucia.n.u.s. We may be sure that it contained a fund of information, and curious materials for history; but the whole is unfortunately lost.

[b] The person intended in this place must not be confounded with Lucius Cra.s.sus, the orator celebrated by Cicero in the Dialogue DE ORATORE. What is here said, relates to Marcus Cra.s.sus, who was joined in the triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar; a man famous for his riches, his avarice, and his misfortunes. While Caesar was engaged in Gaul, and Pompey in Spain, Cra.s.sus invaded Asia, where, in a battle with the Parthians, his whole army was cut to pieces. He himself was in danger of being taken prisoner, but he fell by the sword of the enemy. His head was cut off, and carried to Orodes, the Parthian king, who ordered liquid gold to be infused into his mouth, that he, who thirsted for gold, might be glutted with it after his death. _Caput ejus recisum ad regem reportatum, ludibrio fuit, neque indigno. Aurum enim liquidum in rictum oris infusum est, ut cujus animus a.r.s.erat auri cupiditate, ejus etiam mortuum et exangue corpus auro uteretur._ Florus, lib. iii. cap. 11. Cicero says, that with slender talents, and a small stock of learning, he was able for some years, by his a.s.siduity and interest, to maintain his rank in the list of eminent orators. _Mediocriter a doctrina instructus, angustius etiam a natura, labore et industria, et quod adhibebat ad obtinendas causas curam etiam, et gratiam, in principibus patronis aliquot annos fuit. In hujus oratione sermo Latinus erat, verba non abjecta, res compositae diligenter; nullus flos tamen, neque lumen ullum: animi magna, vocis parva contentio; omnia fere ut similiter, atque uno modo dicerentur._ Cicero, _De Claris Oratoribus_, s. 233.

[c] Lentulus succeeded more by his action than by real ability. With a quick and animated countenance, he was not a man of penetration; though fluent in speech, he had no command of words. His voice was sweet and melodious; his action graceful; and with those advantages he was able to conceal all other defects. _Cneius autem Lentulus multo majorem opinionem dicendi actione faciebat, quam quanta in eo facultas erat; qui c.u.m esset nec peracutus (quamquam et ex facie et ex vultu videbatur) nec abundans verbis, etsi fallebat in eo ipso; sed voce suavi et canora calebat in agendo, ut ea, quae deerant, non desiderarentur._ Cicero, _De Claris Oratoribus_, s. 234. Metellus, Lucullus, and Curio, are mentioned by Cicero in the same work. Curio was a senator of great spirit and popularity. He exerted himself with zeal and ardour for the legal const.i.tution and the liberties of his country against the ambition of Julius Caesar, but afterwards sold himself to that artful politician, and favoured his designs. The calamities that followed are by the best historians laid to his charge. Lucan says of him,

Audax venali comitatur Curio lingua; Vox quondam populi, libertatemque tueri Ausus, et armatos plebi miscere potentes.

Lib. i. ver. 269.

And again,

Momentumque fuit mutatus Curio rerum, Gallorum captus spoliis, et Caesaris auro.

PHARSALIA, lib. iv. ver. 819.

[d] Demosthenes, when not more than seven years old, lost his father, and was left under the care of three guardians, who thought an orphan lawful prey, and did not scruple to embezzle his effects. In the mean time Demosthenes pursued a plan of education, without the aid or advice of his tutors. He became the scholar of Isocrates, and he was the hearer of Plato. Under those masters his progress was such, that at the age of seventeen he was able to conduct a suit against his guardians. The young orator succeeded so well in that prelude to his future fame, that the plunderers of the orphan's portion were condemned to refund a large sum. It is said that Demosthenes, afterwards, released the whole or the greatest part.

Section x.x.xVIII.

[a] The rule for allowing a limited s.p.a.ce of time for the hearing of causes, the extent of which could not be known, began, as Pliny the younger informs us, under the emperors, and was fully established for the reasons which he gives. The custom, he says, of allowing two water-gla.s.ses (_i.e. two hour-gla.s.ses_) or only one, and sometimes half a one, prevailed, because the advocates grew tired before the business was explained, and the judges were ready to decide before they understood the question. Pliny, with some indignation, asks, Are we wiser than our ancestors? are the laws more just at present? Our ancestors allowed many hours, many days, and many adjournments, in every cause; and for my part, as often as I sit in judgement, I allow as much time as the advocate requires; for would it not be rashness to guess what s.p.a.ce of time is necessary in a cause which has not been opened? But some unnecessary things may be said; and is it not better, that what is unnecessary should be spoken, than that what is necessary should be omitted? And who can tell what is necessary, till he has heard? Patience in a judge ought to be considered as one of the chief branches of his duty, as it certainly is of justice. See Plin. b. vi.

ep. 2. In England, there is no danger of arbitrary rules, to gratify the impatience of the court, or to stifle justice. The province of juries, since the late declaratory act in the case of libels, is now better understood; and every judge is taught, that a cause is tried _before him_, not BY HIM. It is his to expound the law, and wait, with temper, for the verdict of those whom the const.i.tution has intrusted.

[b] Pompey's third consulship was A.U.C. 702; before Christ, 52. He was at first sole consul, and in six or seven months Metellus Scipio became his colleague.

[c] The centumviri, as mentioned s. vii. note [c], were a body of men composed of three out of every tribe, for the decision of such matters as the praetors referred to their judgement. The nature of the several causes, that came before that judicature, may be seen in the first book DE ORATORE.

[d] The question in this cause before the centumviri was, whether Clusinius Figulus, the son of Urbinia, fled from his post in battle, and, being taken prisoner, remained in captivity during a length of time, till he made his escape into Italy; or, as was contended by Asinius Pollio, whether the defendant did not serve under two masters, who practised physic, and, being discharged by them, voluntarily sell himself as a slave? See Quintilian, lib. vii. cap. 2.

Section x.x.xIX.

[a] The advocates, at that time, wore a tight cloak, or mantle, like that which the Romans used on a journey. Cicero, in his oration for Milo, argues that he who wore that inconvenient dress, was not likely to have formed a design against the life of any man. _Apparet uter esset insidiator; uter nihil cogitaret mali: c.u.m alter veheretur in rheda, penulatus, una sederet uxor. Quid horum non impeditissimum?

Vest.i.tus? an vehiculum? an comes?_ A travelling-cloak could give neither grace nor dignity to an orator at the bar. The business was transacted in a kind of chat with the judges: what room for eloquence, and that commanding action which springs from the emotions of the soul, and inflames every breast with kindred pa.s.sions? The cold inanimate orator is described, by Quintilian, speaking with his hand under his robe; _manum intra pallium continens._ Section XL.

[a] Maternus is now drawing to a conclusion, and, therefore, calls to mind the proposition with which he set out; viz. that the flame of oratory is kept alive by fresh materials, and always blazes forth in times of danger and public commotion. The unimpa.s.sioned style, which suited the _areopagus_ of Athens, or the courts of Rome, where the advocate spoke by an hour-gla.s.s, does not deserve the name of genuine eloquence. The orations of Cicero for Marcellus, Ligarius, and king Dejotarus, were spoken before Caesar, when he was master of the Roman world. In those speeches, what have we to admire, except delicacy of sentiment, and elegance of diction? How different from the _torrent, tempest, and whirlwind of pa.s.sion_, that roused, inflamed, and commanded the senate, and the people, against Catiline and Marc Antony!

[b] For the account of Cicero's death by Velleius Paterculus, see s.

xvii. note [e]. Juvenal ascribes the murder of the great Roman orator to the second Philippic against Antony.

----Ridenda poemata malo, Quam te conspicuae divina Philippica famae, Volveris a prima quae proxima.

SAT. x. ver. 124.

I rather would be Maevius, thrash for rhymes Like his, the scorn and scandal of the times, Than the _Philippic_, fatally divine, Which is inscrib'd the second, should be mine.

DRYDEN'S JUVENAL.

What Cicero says of Antonius, the celebrated orator, may be applied to himself: That head, which defended the commonwealth, was shewn from that very rostrum, where the heads of so many Roman citizens had been saved by his eloquence. _In his ipsis rostris, in quibus ille rempublicam constantissime consul defenderat, positum caput illud fuit, a quo erant multorum civium capita servata._ Cicero _De Oratore_, lib. iii. s. 10.

Section XLII.

[a] The urbanity with which the Dialogue is conducted, and the perfect harmony with which the speakers take leave of each other, cannot but leave a pleasing impression on the mind of every reader of taste. It has some resemblance to the conclusion of Cicero's Dialogue DE NATURA DEORUM. In both tracts, we have a specimen of the politeness with which the ancients managed a conversation on the most interesting subjects, and by the graces of style brought the way of instructing by dialogue into fashion. A modern writer, whose poetical genius cannot be too much admired, chooses to call it a _frippery way of writing_.

He advises his countrymen to abandon it altogether; and this for a notable reason: because the Rev. Dr. Hurd (now Bishop of Worcester) has shewn the true use of it. That the dialogues of that amiable writer have an intrinsic value, cannot be denied: they contain a fund of reflection; they allure by the elegance of the style, and they bring us into company with men whom we wish to hear, to know, and to admire. While we have such conversation-pieces, not to mention others of the same stamp, both ancient and modern, the public taste, it may be presumed, will not easily be tutored to reject a mode of composition, in which the pleasing and useful are so happily blended.

The present Dialogue, it is true, cannot be proved, beyond a controversy, to be the work of Tacitus; but it is also true, that it cannot, with equal probability, be ascribed to any other writer. It has been retained in almost every edition of Tacitus; and, for that reason, claims a place in a translation which professes to give all the works of so fine a writer.

CONCLUSION.

The Author of these volumes has now gone through the difficult task of translating Tacitus, with the superadded labour of supplements to give continuity to the narrative, and notes to ill.u.s.trate such pa.s.sages as seemed to want explanation; but he cannot lay down his pen, without taking the liberty of addressing a few words to the reader. As what he has to offer relates chiefly to himself, it shall be very short. He has dedicated many years of his life to this undertaking; and though, during the whole time, he had the pleasure and the honour of being acquainted with many gentlemen of taste and learning, he had no opportunity of appealing to their opinion, or guiding himself by their advice. Amidst the hurry of life, and the various pursuits in which all are engaged, how could he hope that any one would be at leisure to attend to the doubts, the difficulties, and minute niceties, which must inevitably occur in a writer of so peculiar a genius as Tacitus? He was unwilling to be a troublesome visitor, and, by consequence, has been obliged, throughout the whole of his work, to trust to his own judgement, such as it is. He spared no pains to do all the justice in his power to one of the greatest writers of antiquity; but whether he has toiled with fruitless industry, or has in any degree succeeded, must be left to the judgement of others.

He is now at the end of his labours, and ready, after the example of Montesquieu, to cry out with the voyager in Virgil, _Italiam!

Italian!_ But whether he is to land on a peaceful sh.o.r.e; whether the men who delight in a wreck, are to rush upon him with hostile pens, which in their hands are pitch-forks; whether his cargo is to be condemned, and he himself to be wounded, maimed, and lacerated; a little time will discover. Such critics will act as their nature prompts them. Should they _cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war_, it may be said,

Quod genus hoc hominum, quaeve hunc tam barbara morem Permitt.i.t patria? Hospitio prohibemur arenae; Bella cient, primaque vetant consistere terra.

This, they may say, is antic.i.p.ating complaint; but, in the worst that can happen, it is the only complaint this writer will ever make, and the only answer they will ever receive from his pen.

It is from a very different quarter that the translator of Tacitus waits for solid criticism. The men, as Pliny observes, who read with malignity, are not the only judges. _Neque enim soli judicant, qui maligne legunt._ The scholar will see defects, but he will p.r.o.nounce with temper: he will know the difficulty, and, in some cases, perhaps the impossibility, of giving in our language the sentiments of Tacitus with the precision and energy of the original; and, upon the whole, he will acknowledge that an attempt to make a considerable addition to English literature, carries with it a plea of some merit. While the French could boast of having many valuable translations of Tacitus, and their most eminent authors were still exerting themselves, with emulation, to improve upon their predecessors, the present writer saw, with regret, that this country had not so much as one translation which could be read, without disgust, by any person acquainted with the idiom and structure of our language. To supply the deficiency has been the ambition of the translator. He persevered with ardour; but, his work being finished, ardour subsides, and doubt and anxiety take their turn. Whatever the event may be, the conscious pleasure of having employed his time in a fair endeavour will remain with him.

For the rest, he submits his labours to the public; and, at that tribunal, neither flushed with hope, nor depressed by fear, he is prepared, with due acquiescence, to receive a decision, which, from his own experience on former occasions, he has reason to persuade himself will be founded in truth and candour.