Dialog on Oratory: 1 [20]

The Works of Tacitus

tr. by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb

[1864-1877]

Tacitus: Dialog on Oratory Book 1 [20]

20. Who will now tolerate an advocate who begins by speaking of the feebleness
of his constitution, as is usual in the openings of Corvinus? Who will sit out
the five books against Verres? Who will endure those huge volumes, on a legal
plea or form, which we have read in the speeches for Marcus Tullius and Aulus
Caecina? In our day the judge anticipates the speaker, and unless he is charmed
and imposed on by the train of arguments, or the brilliancy of the thoughts,
or the grace and elegance of the descriptive sketches, he is deaf to his eloquence.
Even the mob of bystanders, and the chance listeners who flock in, now usually
require brightness and beauty in a speech, and they no more endure in the law-court
the harshness and roughness of antiquity, than they would an actor on the stage
who chose to reproduce the gestures of Roscius or Ambivius. So again the young,
those whose studies are on the anvil, who go after the orators with a view to
their own progress, are anxious not merely to hear but also to carry back home
some brilliant passage worthy of remembrance. They tell it one to another, and
often mention it in letters to their colonies and provinces, whether it is a
reflection lighted up by a neat and pithy phrase, or a passage bright with choice
and poetic ornament. For we now expect from a speaker even poetic beauty, not
indeed soiled with the old rust of Accius or Pacuvius, but such as is produced
from the sacred treasures of Horace, Virgil, and Lucan. Thus the age of our
orators, in conforming itself to the ear and the taste of such a class, has
advanced in beauty and ornateness. Nor does it follow that our speeches are
less successful because they bring pleasure to the ears of those who have to
decide. What if you were to assume that the temples of the present day are weaker,
because, instead of being built of rough blocks and ill-shaped tiles, they shine
with marble and glitter with gold?

21. I will frankly admit to you that I can hardly keep from laughing at some
of the ancients, and from falling asleep at others. I do not single out any
of the common herd, as Canutius, or Arrius, and others in the same sick-room,
so to say, who are content with mere skin and bones. Even Calvus, although he
has left, I think, one-and-twenty volumes, scarcely satisfies me in one or two
short speeches. The rest of the world, I see, does not differ from my opinion
about him; for how few read his speeches against Asitius or Drusus! Certainly
his impeachment of Vatinius, as it is entitled, is in the hands of students,
especially the second of the orations. This, indeed, has a finish about the
phrases and the periods, and suits the ear of the critic, whence you may infer
that even Calvus understood what a better style is, but that he lacked genius
and power rather than the will to speak with more dignity and grace. What again
from the speeches of Caelius do we admire? Why, we like of these the whole,
or at least parts, in which we recognise the polish and elevation of our own
day; but, as for those mean expressions, those gaps in the structure of the
sentences, and uncouth sentiments, they savour of antiquity. No one, I suppose,
is so thoroughly antique as to praise Caelius simply on the side of his antiqueness.
We may, indeed, make allowance for Caius Julius Car, on account of his vast
schemes and many occupations, for having achieved less in eloquence than his
divine genius demanded from him, and leave him indeed, just as we leave Brutus
to his philosophy. Undoubtedly in his speeches he fell short of his reputation,
even by the admission of his admirers. I hardly suppose that any one reads Car’s
speech for Decius the Samnite, or that of Brutus for King Deiotarus, or other
works equally dull and cold, unless it is some one who also admires their poems.
For they did write poems, and sent them to libraries, with no better success
than Cicero, but with better luck, because fewer people know that they wrote
them.

Asinius too, though born in a time nearer our own, seems to have studied
with the Menenii and Appii. At any rate he imitated Pacuvius and Accius, not
only in his tragedies but also in his speeches; he is so harsh and dry. Style,
like the human body, is then specially beautiful when, so to say, the veins
are not prominent, and the bones cannot be counted, but when a healthy and sound
blood fills the limbs, and shows itself in the muscles, and the very sinews
become beautiful under a ruddy glow and graceful outline. I will not attack
Corvinus, for it was not indeed his own fault that he did not exhibit the luxuriance
and brightness of our own day. Rather let us note how far the vigour of his
intellect or of his imagination satisfied his critical faculty.

22. I come now to Cicero. He had the same battle with his contemporaries
which I have with you. They admired the ancients; he preferred the eloquence
of his own time. It was in taste more than anything else that he was superior
to the orators of that age. In fact, he was the first who gave a finish to oratory,
the first who applied a principle of selection to words, and art to composition.
He tried his skill at beautiful passages, and invented certain arrangements
of the sentence, at least in those speeches which he composed when old and near
the close of life, that is when he had made more progress, and had learnt by
practice and by many a trial, what was the best style of speaking. As for his
early speeches, they are not free from the faults of antiquity. He is tedious
in his introductions, lengthy in his narrations, careless about digressions;
he is slow to rouse himself, and seldom warms to his subject, and only an idea
here and there is brought to a fitting and a brilliant close. There is nothing
which you can pick out or quote, and the style is like a rough building, the
wall of which indeed is strong and lasting, but not particularly polished and
bright. Now I would have an orator, like a rich and grand householder, not merely
be sheltered by a roof sufficient to keep off rain and wind, but by one to delight
the sight and the eye; not merely be provided with such furniture as is enough
for necessary purposes, but also possess among his treasures gold and jewels,
so that he may find a frequent pleasure in handling them and gazing on them.
On the other hand, some things should be kept at a distance as being now obsolete
and ill-savoured. There should be no phrase stained, so to speak, with rust;
no ideas should be expressed in halting and languid periods after the fashion
of chronicles. The orator must shun an offensive and tasteless scurrility; he
must vary the structure of his sentences and not end all his clauses in one
and the same way.

23. Phrases like “Fortune’s wheel” and “Verrine soup,” I do not care to ridicule,
or that stock ending of every third clause in all Cicero’s speeches, “it would
seem to be,” brought in as the close of a period. I have mentioned them with
reluctance, omitting several, although they are the sole peculiarities admired
and imitated by those who call themselves orators of the old school. I will
not name any one, as I think it enough to have pointed at a class. Still, you
have before your eyes men who read Lucilius rather than Horace, and Lucretius
rather than Virgil, who have a mean opinion of the eloquence of Aufidius Bassus,
and Servilius Nonianus compared with that of Sisenna or Varro, and who despise
and loathe the treatises of our modern rhetoricians, while those of Calvus are
their admiration. When these men prose in the old style before the judges, they
have neither select listeners nor a popular audience; in short the client himself
hardly endures them. They are dismal and uncouth, and the very soundness of
which they boast, is the result not so much of real vigour as of fasting. Even
as to health of body, physicians are not satisfied with that which is attained
at the cost of mental worry. It is a small matter not to be ill; I like a man
to be robust and hearty and full of life. If soundness is all that you can praise
him for, he is not very far from being an invalid. Be it yours, my eloquent
friends, to grace our age to the best of your ability, as in fact you are doing,
with the noblest style of oratory. You, Messala, imitate, I observe, the choicest
beauties of the ancients. And you, Maternus and Secundus, combine charm and
finish of ex-pression with weight of thought. There is discrimination in the
phrases you invent, order in the treatment of your subject, fullness, when the
case demands it, conciseness, when it is possible, elegance in your style, and
perspicuity in every sentence. You can express passion, and yet control an orator’s
licence. And so, although ill-nature and envy may have stood in the way of our
good opinions, posterity will speak the truth concerning you.

24. Aper having finished speaking, Maternus said, You recognise, do you not,
our friend Aper’s force and passion? With what a torrent, what a rush of eloquence
has he been defending our age? How full and varied was his tirade against the
ancients! What ability and spirit, what learning and skill too did he show in
borrowing from the very men themselves the weapons with which he forthwith proceeded
to attack them! Still, as to your promise, Messala, there must for all this
be no change. We neither want a defence of the ancients, nor do we compare any
of ourselves, though we have just heard our own praises, with those whom Aper
has denounced. Aper himself thinks otherwise; he merely followed an old practice
much in vogue with your philosophical school of assuming the part of an opponent.
Give us then not a panegyric on the ancients (their own fame is a sufficient
panegyric) but tell us plainly the reasons why with us there has been such a
falling off from their eloquence, the more marked as dates have proved that
from the death of Cicero to this present day is but a hundred and twenty years.

25. Messala replied, I will take the line you have prescribed for me. Certainly
I need not argue long against Aper, who began by raising what I think a controversy
about a name, implying that it is not correct to call ancients those whom we
all know to have lived a hundred years ago. I am not fighting about a word.
Let him call them ancients or elders or any other name he prefers, provided
only we have the admission that the eloquence of that age exceeded ours. If
again he freely admits that even in the same, much more in different periods,
there were many varieties of oratory, against this part too of his argument
I say nothing. I maintain, however, that just as among Attic orators we give
the first place to Demosthenes and assign the next to Aeschines, Hyperides,
Lysias and Lycurgus, while all agree in regarding this as pre-eminently the
age of speakers, so among ourselves Cicero indeed was superior to all the eloquent
men of his day, though Calvus, Asinius, Car, Caelius, and Brutus may claim
the right of being preferred to those who preceded and who followed them. It
matters nothing that they differ in special points, seeing that they are generically
alike. Calvus is the more terse, Asinius has the finer rhythm, Car greater
brilliancy, Caelius is the more caustic, Brutus the more earnest, Cicero the
more impassioned, the richer and more forcible. Still about them all there is
the same healthy tone of eloquence. Take into your hand the works of all alike
and you see that amid wide differences of genius, there is a resemblance and
affinity of intellect and moral purpose. Grant that they disparaged each other
(and certainly there are some passages in their letters which show mutual ill-will),
still this is the failing, not of the orator, but of the man. Calvus, Asinius,
Cicero himself, I presume, were apt to be envious and ill-natured, and to have
the other faults of human infirmity. Brutus alone of the number in my opinion
laid open the convictions of his heart frankly and ingenuously, without ill-will
or envy. Is it possible that he envied Cicero, when he seems not to have envied
even Car? As to Servius Galba, and Caius Laelius, and others of the ancients
whom Aper has persistently assailed, he must not expect me to defend them, for
I admit that their eloquence, being yet in its infancy and imperfectly developed,
had certain defects.

26. After all, if I must put on one side the highest and most perfect type
of eloquence and select a style, I should certainly prefer the vehemence of
Caius Gracchus or the sobriety of Lucius Crassus to the curls of Maecenas or
the jingles of Gallio: so much better is it for an orator to wear a rough dress
than to glitter in many-coloured and meretricious attire. Indeed, neither for
an orator or even a man is that style becoming which is adopted by many of the
speakers of our age, and which, with its idle redundancy of words, its meaningless
periods and licence of expression, imitates the art of the actor. Shocking as
it ought to be to our ears, it is a fact that fame, glory, and genius are sacrificed
by many to the boast that their compositions are given with the tones of the
singer, the gestures of the dancer. Hence the exclamation, which, though often
heard, is a shame and an absurdity, that our orators speak prettily and our
actors dance eloquently. For myself I would not deny that Cassius Severus, the
only speaker whom Aper ventured to name, may, if compared with his successors,
be called an orator, although in many of his works he shows more violence than
vigour. The first to despise arrangement, to cast off propriety and delicacy
of expression, confused by the very weapons he employs, and often stumbling
in his eagerness to strike, he wrangles rather than fights. Still, as I have
said, compared with his successors, he is far superior to all in the variety
of his learning, the charm of his wit, and the solidity of his very strength.
Not one of them has Aper had the courage to mention, and, so to say, to bring
into the field. When he had censured Asinius, Caelius, and Calvus, I expected
that he would show us a host of others, and name more, or at least as many who
might be pitted man by man against Cicero, Car, and the rest. As it is, he
has contented himself with singling out for disparagement some ancient orators,
and has not dared to praise any of their successors, except generally and in
terms common to all, fearing, I sup-pose, that he would offend many, if he selected
a few. For there is scarce one of our rhetoricians who does not rejoice in his
conviction that he is to be ranked before Cicero, but unquestionably second
to Gabinianus.

27. For my own part I shall not scruple to mention men by name, that, with
examples before us, we may the more easily perceive the successive steps of
the ruin and decay of eloquence.

Maternus here interrupted him. Rather prepare yourself to fulfil your promise.
We do not want proof of the superior eloquence of the ancients; as far as I
am concerned, it is admitted. We are inquiring into the causes, and these you
told us but now you had been in the habit of discussing, when you were less
excited and were not raving against the eloquence of our age, just before Aper
offended you by attacking your ancestors.

I was not offended, replied Messala, by our friend Aper’s argument, nor again
will you have a right to be offended, if any remark of mine happens to grate
on your ears, for you know that it is a rule in these discussions that we may
speak out our convictions without impairing mutual good-will.

Proceed, said Maternus. As you are speaking of the ancients, avail yourself
of ancient freedom, from which we have fallen away even yet more than from eloquence.

28. Messala continued. Far from obscure are the causes which you seek. Neither
to yourself or to our friends, Secundus and Aper, are they unknown, though you
assign me the part of speaking out before you what we all think. Who does not
know that eloquence and all other arts have declined from their ancient glory,
not from dearth of men, but from the indolence of the young, the carelessness
of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and neglect of the old discipline? The
evils which first began in Rome soon spread through Italy, and are now diffusing
themselves into the provinces. But your provincial affairs are best known to
yourselves. I shall speak of Rome, and of those native and home-bred vices which
take hold of us as soon as we are horn, and multiply with every stage of life,
when I have first said a few words on the strict discipline of our ancestors
in the education and training of children. Every citizen’s son, the child of
a chaste mother, was from the beginning reared, not in the chamber of a purchased
nurse, but in that mother’s bosom and embrace, and it was her special glory
to study her home and devote herself to her children. It was usual to select
an elderly kinswoman of approved and esteemed character to have the entire charge
of all the children of the household. In her presence it was the last offence
to utter an unseemly word or to do a disgraceful act. With scrupulous piety
and modesty she regulated not only the boy’s studies and occupations, but even
his recreations and games. Thus it was, as tradition says, that the mothers
of the Gracchi, of Car, of Augustus, Cornelia, Aurelia, Atia, directed their
children’s education and reared the greatest of sons. The strictness of the
discipline tended to form in each case a pure and virtuous nature which no vices
could warp, and which would at once with the whole heart seize on every noble
lesson. Whatever its bias, whether to the soldier’s or the lawyer’s art, or
to the study of eloquence, it would make that its sole aim, and imbibe it in
its fullness.

29. But in our day we entrust the infant to a little Greek servant-girl who
is attended by one or two, commonly the worst of all the slaves, creatures utterly
unfit for any important work. Their stories and their prejudices from the very
first fill the child’s tender and uninstructed mind. No one in the whole house
cares what he says or does before his infant master. Even parents themselves
familiarise their little ones, not with virtue and modesty, but with jesting
and glib talk, which lead on by degrees to shamelessness and to contempt for
themselves as well as for others. Really I think that the characteristic and
peculiar vices of this city, a liking for actors and a passion for gladiators
and horses, are all but conceived in the mother’s womb. When these occupy and
possess the mind, how little room has it left for worthy attainments! Few indeed
are to be found who talk of any other subjects in their homes, and whenever
we enter a class-room, what else is the conversation of the youths. Even with
the teachers, these are the more frequent topics of talk with their scholars.
In fact, they draw pupils, not by strictness of discipline or by giving proof
of ability, but by assiduous court and cunning tricks of flattery.

Next: Book 1 [30]