The Triumvir.] therefore, to whom our ancestors adjudged the palm of
Eloquence, and who had much natural penetration and sagacity, has observed
in the only book he published, "_that he had seen many good Speakers, but
not a single Orator_." The full and perfect semblance of Eloquence had so
thoroughly possessed his mind, and was so completely visible there, though
no where exemplified in practice, that this consummate Genius, (for such,
indeed, he was) observing many defects in both himself and others, could
discover no one who merited the name of _eloquent_. But if he considered
neither himself, nor Lucius Crassus, as a genuine Orator, he must have
formed in his mind a sublime idea of Eloquence, under which, because there
was nothing wanting to compleat it, he could not comprehend those Speakers
who were any ways deficient. Let us then, my Brutus, (if we are able)
trace out the Orator whom Antonius never saw, and who, it may be, has
never yet existed; for though we have not the skill to copy his likeness
in real practice, (a talk which, in the opinion of the person above-
mentioned, would be almost too arduous for one of the Gods,) we may be
able, perhaps, to give some account of what he _ought_ to be.
Good Speaking, then, may be divided into three characters, in each of
which there are some who have made an eminent figure: but to be equally
excellent in all (which is what we require) has been the happiness of few.
The _lofty_ and _majestic_ Speaker, who distinguishes himself by the
energy of his sentiments, and the dignity of his expression, is
impetuous,--diversified,--copious,--and weighty,--and abundantly qualified
to alarm and sway the passions;--which some effect by a harsh, and a
rough, gloomy way of speaking, without any harmony or measure; and others,
by a smooth, a regular, and a well-proportioned style.
On the other hand, the _simple_ and _easy_ Speaker is remarkably dexterous
and keen, and aiming at nothing but our information, makes every thing he
discourses upon, rather clear and open than great and striking, and
polishes it with the utmost neatness and accuracy. But some of this kind
of Speakers, who are distinguished by their peculiar artificie, are
designedly unpolished, and appear rude and unskilful, that they may have
the better opportunity of deceiving us:--while others, with the same
poverty of style, are far more elegant and agreeable,--that is, they are
pleasant and facetious, and sometimes even florid, with here and there an
easy ornament.
But there is likewise a _middle_ kind of Oratory, between the two above-
mentioned, which neither has the keenness of the latter, nor hurls the
thunder of the former; but is a mixture of both, without excelling in
either, though at the same time it has something of each, or (perhaps,
more properly) is equally destitute of the true merit of both. This
species of Eloquence flows along in a uniform course, having nothing to
recommend it, but it's peculiar smoothness and equability; though at the
same time, it intermingles a number of decorations, like the tufts of
flowers in a garland, and embellishes a discourse from beginning to end
with the moderate and less striking ornaments of language and sentiment.
Those who have attained to any degree of perfection in either of the above
characters, have been distinguished as eminent Orators: but the question
is whether any of them have compassed what we are seeking after, and
succeeded equally in all. For there have been several who could speak
nervously and pompously, and yet, upon occasion, could express themselves
with the greates address, and simplicity. I wish I could refer to such an
Orator, or at least to one who nearly resembles him, among the Romans; for
it would certainly have been more to our credit to be able to refer to
proper examples of our own, and not be necessitated to have recourse to
the Greeks. But though in another treatis of mine, which bears the name of
_Brutus_, [Footnote: A very excellent Treatise in the form of a Dialogue.
It contains a critical and very instructive account of all the noted
Orators of _Greece_ and _Rome_ and might be called, with great propriety,
_the History of Eloquence_. Though it is perhaps the most entertaining of
all Cicero's performances, the Public have never been obliged before with
a translation of it into English; which, I hope, will sufficiently plead
my excuse for preforming to undertake it.] I have said much in favour of
the Romans, partly to excite their emulation, and, in some measure, from a
partial fondness for my country; yet I must always remember to give the
preference to _Demosthenes_, who alone has adapted his genius to that
perfect species of Eloquence of which I can readily form an idea, but
which I have never yet seen exemplified in practice. Than _him_, there has
never hitherto existed a more nervous, and at the same time, a more subtle
Speaker, or one more cool and temperate. I must, therefore, caution those
whose ignorant discourse is become so common, and who wish to pass for
_Attic_ Speakers, or at least to express themselves in the _Attic_ taste,
--I must caution them to take _him_ for their pattern, than whom it is
impossible that Athens herself should be more completely Attic: and, as to
genuine Atticism, that them learn what it means, and measure the force of
Eloquence, not by their own weakness and incapacity, but by his wonderful
energy and strength. For, at present, a person bestows his commendation
upon just so much as he thinks himself capable of imitating. I therefore
flatter myself that it will not be foreign to my purpose, to instruct
those who have a laudable emulation, but are not thoroughly settled in
their judgment, wherein the merit of an Attic Orator consists.
The taste of the Audience, then, has always governed and directed the
Eloquence of the Speaker: for all who wish to be applauded, consult the
character, and the inclinations of those who hear them, and carefully form
and accommodate themselves to their particular humours and dispositions.
Thus in Caria, Phrygia, and Mysia, because the inhabitants have no relish
for true elegance and politeness, the Orators have adopted (as most
agreeable to the ears of their audience) a luxuriant, and, if I may so
express myself, a corpulent style; which their neighbours the Rhodians,
who are only parted from them by a narrow straight, have never approved,
and much less the Greeks; but the Athenians have entirely banished it; for
their taste has always been so just and accurate that they could not
listen to any thing but what was perfectly correct and elegant. An Orator,
therefore, to compliment their delicacy, was forced to be always upon his
guard against a faulty or a distasteful expression.
Accordingly, _he_, whom we have just mentioned as surpassing the rest, has
been careful in his Oration for Ctesiphon, (which is the best he ever
composed) to set out very cooly and modestly: when he proceeds to argue
the point of law, he grows more poignant and pressing; and as he advances
in his defence, he takes still greater liberties; till, at last, having
warmed the passions of his Judges, he exults at his pleasure through the
reamining part of his discourse. But even in _him_, thus carefully
weighing and poising his every word _Aeschines_ [Footnote: _Aeschines_ was
a cotemporary, and a professed rival of Demosthenes. He carried his
animosity so far as to commence a litigious suit against him, at a time
when the reputation of the latter was at the lowest ebb. But being
overpowered by the Eloquence of Demosthenes, he was condemned to perpetual
banishment.] could find several expressions to turn into ridicule:--for
giving a loose to his raillery, he calls them harsh, and detestable, and
too shocking to be endured; and styling the author of them a very
_monster_, he tauntingly asks him whether such expressions could be
considered as _words_ or not rather as absolute _frights_ and _prodigies_.
So that to AEschines not even _Demosthenes_ himself was perfectly _Attic_;
for it is an easy matter to catch a _glowing_ expression, (if I may be
allowed to call it so) and expose it to ridicule when the fire of
attention is extinguished. Demosthenes, therefore, when he endeavours to
excuse himself, condescends to jest, and denies that the fortune of Greece
was in the least affected by the singularity of a particular expression,
or by his moving his hand either this way or that.
With what patience, then, would a Mysian or a Phrygian have been heard at
Athens, when even Demosthenes himself was reproached as a nuisance? But
should the former have begun his whining sing-song, after the manner of
the Asiatics, who would have endured it? or rather, who would not have
ordered him to be instantly torn from the Rostrum? Those, therefore, who
can accommodate themselves to the nice and critical ears of an Athenian
audience, are the only persons who should pretend to Atticism.
But though Atticism may be divided into several kinds, these mimic
Athenians suspect but one. They imagine that to discourse plainly, and
without any ornament, provided it be done correctly, and clearly, is the
only genuine Atticism. In confining it to this alone, they are certainly
mistaken; though when they tell us that this is really Attic, they are so
far in the right. For if the only true Atticism is what they suppose to
be, not even _Pericles_ was an Attic Speaker, though he was universally
allowed to bear away the palm of Eloquence; nor, if he had wholly attached
himself to this plain and simple kind of language, would he ever have been
said by the Poet Aristophanes _to thunder and lighten, and throw all
Greece into a ferment_.
Be it allowed, then, that Lysias, that graceful and most polite of
Speakers, was truly Attic: for who can deny it? But let it also be
remembered that Lysias claims the merit of Atticism, not so much for his
simplicity and want of ornament, as because he has nothing which is either
faulty or impertinent. But to speak floridly, nervously, and copiously,
this also is true Atticism:--otherwise, neither Aeschines nor even
Demosthenes himself were Attic Speakers.
There are others who affect to be called _Thucydideans_,--a strange and
novel race of Triflers! For those who attach themselves to Lysias, have a
real Pleader for their pattern;--not indeed a stately, and striking
Pleader, but yet a dextrous and very elegant one, who might appear in the
Forum with reputation.
Thucydides, on the contrary, is a mere Historian, who ('tis true)
describes wars, and battles with great dignity and precision; but he can
supply us with nothing which is proper for the Forum. For his very
speeches have so many obscure and intricate periods, that they are
scarcely intelligible; which in a public discourse is the greatest fault
of which an Orator can be guilty. But who, when the use of corn has been
discovered, would be so mad as to feed upon acorns? Or could the Athenians
improve their diet, and bodily food, and be incapable of cultivating their
language? Or, lastly, which of the Greek Orators has copied the style of
Thucydides? [Footnote: Demosthenes indeed took the pains to transcribe the
History of Thucydides several times. But he did this, no so much to copy
the _form_ as the energy of his language.] "True," they reply, "but
Thucydides was universally admired." And so, indeed, he was; but only as a
sensible, an exact, and a grave Historian;--not for his address in public
debates, but for his excellence in describing wars and battles.
Accordingly, he was never mentioned as an Orator; nor would his name have
been known to posterity, if he had not composed his History,
notwithstanding the dignity of his birth, and the honourable share he held
in the Government. But none of these Pretenders have copied his energy;
and yet when they have uttered a few mutilated and broken periods (which
they might easily have done without a master to imitate) we must rever
them, truly, as so many genuine _Thucydideses_. I have likewise met with a
few who were professed imitators of Xenophon; whose language, indeed, is
sweeter than honey, but totally unqualified to withstand the clamours of
the Forum.
Let us return then to the Orator we are seeking after, and furnish him
with those powers of Elocution, which Antonius could not discover in any
one: an arduous task, my Brutus, and full of difficulty:--yet nothing, I
believe, is impossible to him whose breast is fired with the generous
flame of friendship! But I affectionately admire (and have always admired)
your genius, your inclinations, and your manners. Nay, I am daily more
inflamed and ravished, not only with a desire (which, I assure you, is a
violent one) to renew our friendly intercourses, our social repasts, and
your improving conversation, but by the wonderful fame of your incredible
virtues, which, though different in kind, are readily united by your
superior wisdom and good-sense. For what is so remote from severity of
manners as gentleness and affability? and yet who more venerable than
yourself, or who more agreeable? What can be more difficult than to decide
a number of suits, so as to be equally esteemed and beloved by the parties
on both sides? You, however, possess the admirable talent of sending away
perfectly easy and contented even those against whom your are forced to
give judgment: thus bringing it to bear that, while you do nothing from a
partial favour to any man, whatever you do is favourably received. Hence
it happens, that the only country upon earth, which is not involved in the
present confusion, is the province of Gaul; where you are now enjoying
yourself in a happy tranquillity, while you are universally respected at
home, and live in the hearts of the flower and strength of your fellow-
citizens. It is equally amazing, though you are always engaged in the most
important offices of Government, that your studies are never intermitted;
and that you are constantly either composing something of your own, or
finding employment for me! Accordingly I began this Essay, at your
request, as soon as I had finished my _Cato_; which last also I should
never have attempted (especially at a time when the enemies of virtue were
so numerous) if I had not considered it as a crime to disobey my friend,
when he only urged me to revive the memory of a man whom I always loved
and honoured in his life-time. But I have now ventured upon a task which
you have frequently pressed upon me, and I as often refused: for, if
possible, I would share the fault between us, that if I should prove
unequal to the subject, you may have the blame of loading me with a burden
which is beyond my strength, and I the censure of presuming to undertake
it:--though after all, the single merit of gratifying such a friend as
Brutus, will sufficiently atone for any defects I may fall into.
But in every accomplishment which may become the object of pursuit, it is
excessively difficult to delineate the form (or, as the Greeks call it,
the _character_ [Footnote: [Greek: charachtaer].]) of what is _best_;
because some suppose it to consist in one thing, and some in another.
Thus, for instance, "I am for _Ennius_," says one; "because he confines
himself to the style of conversation:"--"and I," says another, "give the
preference to _Pacuvius_, because his verses are embellished and well-
wrought; whereas Ennius is rather too "negligent." In the same manner we
may suppose a third to be an admirer of Attius; for, as among the Greeks,
so it happens with us, "_different men have different opinions_;"--nor is
it easy to determine which is best. Thus also in painting, some are
pleased with a rough, a wild, and a dark and cloudy style; while others
prefer that which is clear, and lively, and well covered with light. How
then shall we strike out a general _rule_ or _model_, when there are
several manners, and each of them has a certain perfection of its own? But
this difficulty has not deterred me from the undertaking; nor have I
altered my opinion that in all things there is a _something_ which
comprehends the highest excellence of the kind, and which, though not
generally discernible, is sufficiently conspicuous to him, who is skilled
in the subject.
"But as there are several kinds of Eloquence which differ considerably
from each other, and therefore cannot be reduced to one common form;--for
this reason, as to mere laudatory Orations, Essays, Histories, and such
suasory performances as the Panegyric of Isocrates, and the speeches of
many others who were called _Sophists_;--and, in short, as to every thing
which is unconnected with the Forum, and the whole of that species of
discourse which the Greeks call the _demonstrative_ [Footnote: The
_demonstrative_ species of Eloquence is that which was solely employed
either in _praising_ or _dispraising_. Besides this, there are two
others, viz. the _deliberative_, and the _judicial_; the former was
employed in political debates, where it's whole business was either
to _persuade_ or _dissuade_; and the latter, in judicial suits and
controversies, where the Speaker was either to _accuse_ or _defend_.
But, on many occasions, they were all three intermingled in the same
discourse.];--the form, or leading character of these I shall pass over;
though I am far from considering it as a mere trifle, or a subject of
no consequence; on the contrary, we may regard it as the nurse and
tutoress of the Orator we are now delineating. For _here_, a fluency
of expression is confessedly nourished and cultivated; and the easy
construction, and harmonious cadence of our language is more openly
attended to. _Here_, likewise, we both allow and recommend a studious
elegance of diction, and a continued flow of melodious and well-turned
periods;--and _here_, we may labour visibly, and without concealing
our art, to contrast word to word, and to compare similar, and oppose
contrary circumstances, and make several sentences (or parts of a
sentence) conclude alike, and terminate with the same cadence;
--ornaments, which in real pleadings, are to be used more sparingly, and
with less appearance of art. Isocrates, therefore, confesses in his
_Panathenaicus_, that these were beauties which he industriously pursued;
for he composed it not for victory in a suit at law (where such a
confession must have greatly injured his cause) but merely to gratify the
ear.
"It is recorded that the first persons who practised this species of
composition [Footnote: The _composition_ here mentioned consisted of three
parts, The _first_ regarded the structure; that is, the _connection_ of
our words, and required that the last syllable of every preceding, and the
first of every succeeding word should be so aptly united as to produce an
agreeable sound; which was effected by avoiding a collision of vowels or
of inamicable consonants. It likewise required that those words should be
constantly made choice of, whose separate sounds were most harmonious and
most agreeable to the sense. The _second_ part consisted in the use of
particular forms of expression, such as contrasts and antithesises, which
have an appearance of order and regularity in their very texture. The
_third_ and last regarded that species of harmony which results not so
much from the sound, as from the time and quantity of the several
syllables in a sentence. This was called _number_, and sometimes _rhyme_;
and was in fact a kind of _prosaic metre_, which was carefully attended to
by the ancients in every part of a sentence, but more particularly at the
beginning and end of it. In this part they usually included the _period_,
or the rules for determining the length of their sentences. I thought it
necessary to give this short account of their composition, because our
author very frequently alludes to it, before he proceeds to explain it at
large.] were _Thrasymachus_ the Chalcedonian, and _Gorgias_ the Leontine;
and that these were followed by _Theodorus_ the Byzantine, and a number of
others, whom Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, calls [Greek:
logodaidalos] _Speech-wrights_; many of whole discourses are sufficiently
neat and entertaining; but, being the first attempts of the kind, were too
minute and puerile, and had too poetical an air, and too much colouring.
On this account, the merit of _Herodotus_, and _Thucydides_ is the more
conspicuous: for though they lived at the time we are speaking of, they
carefully avoided those studied decorations, or rather futilities. The
former rolls along like a deep, still river without any rocks or shoals to
interrupt it's course; and the other describes wars and battles, as if he
was founding a charge on the trumpet; so that history (to use the words
of _Theophrastus_) caught the first alarm from these, and began to express
herself with greater dignity and spirit.
"After these came _Socrates_, whom I have always recommended as the most
accomplished writer we have in the way I am speaking of; though sometimes,
my Brutus, you have objected to it with a great deal of pleasantry and
erudition. But when you are better informed for what it is I recommend
him, you will then think of him perhaps as favourably as I do.
Thrasymachus and Gorgias (who are said to have been the first who
cultivated the art of prosaic harmony) appeared to him to be too minutely
exact; and Thucydides, he thought, was as much too loose and rugged, and
not sufficiently smooth, and full-mouthed; and from hence he took the hint
to give a scope to his sentences by a more copious and unconfined flow of
language, and to fill up their breaks and intervals with the softer and
more agreeable numbers. By teaching this to the most celebrated Speakers,
and Composers of the age, his house came at last to be honoured as the
_School of Eloquence_. Wherefore as I bore the censure of others with
indifference, when I had the good fortune to be applauded by Cato; thus
Isocrates, with the approbation of Plato, may slight the judgment of
inferior critics. For in the last page of the Phaedrus, we find _Socrates_
thus expressing himself;--'Now, indeed, my dear Phaedrus,' said he,
'Isocrates is but a youth: but I will discover to you what I think of
him.'--'And what is that?' replied the other.--'He appears to me,' said
the Philosopher, 'to have too elevated a genius to be placed on a level
with the arid speeches of Lysias. Besides, he has a stronger turn for
virtue; so that I shall not wonder, as he advances in years, if in the
species of Eloquence to which he now applies himself, he should exceed
all, who have hitherto pursued it, like so many infants. Or, if this
should not content him, I shall not be astonished to behold him with a
godlike ardour pursuing higher and more important studies; for I plainly
see that he has a natural bent to Philosophy!'"
Thus Socrates presaged of him when he was but a youth. But Plato recorded
this eulogium when he was older; and he recorded it, though he was one of
his equals and cotemporaries, and a professed enemy to the whole tribe of
Rhetoricians! _Him_ he admires, and _him_ alone! So that such who despise
Isocrates, must suffer me to err with Socrates and Plato.
The manner of speaking, then, which is observed in the _demonstrative_ or
ornamental species of Eloquence, and which I have before remarked, was
peculiar to the Sophists, is sweet, harmonious, and flowing, full of
pointed sentiments, and arrayed in all the brilliance of language. But it
is much fitter for the parade than the field; and being, therefore,
consigned to the Palaestra, and the schools, has been long banished from
the Forum. As Eloquence, however, after she had been fed and nourished
with this, acquires a fresher complexion, and a firmer constitution; it
would not be amiss, I thought, to trace our Orator from his very _cradle_.
But these things are only for shew and amusement: whereas it is our
business to take the field in earnest, and prepare for action. As there
are three particulars, then, to be attended to by an Orator,--viz. _what_
he is to say, in _what order_, and _how_; we shall consider what is most
excellent in each; but after a different manner from what is followed in
delivering a system of the Art. For we are not to furnish a set of
precepts (this not being the province we have undertaken) but to exhibit a
portrait of Eloquence in her full perfection: neither is it our business
to explain the methods by which we may acquire it, but only to shew what
opinion we ought to form of it.