THE HISTORY OF ORATORY BEFORE CICERO.
As the spiritual life of a people is reflected in their poetry, so their
living voice is heard in their oratory. Oratory is the child of freedom.
Under the despotisms of the East it could have no existence; under every
despotism it withers. The more truly free a nation is, the greater will
its oratory be. In no country was there a grander field for the growth of
oratorical genius than in Rome. The two countries that approach nearest to
it in this respect are beyond doubt Athens and England. In both eloquence
has attained its loftiest height, in the one of popular, in the other of
patrician excellence. The eloquence of Demosthenes is popular in the
noblest sense. It is addressed to a sovereign people who knew that they
were sovereign. Neither to deliberative nor to executive did they for a
moment delegate that supreme power which it delighted them to exercise. He
that had a measure or a bill to propose had only to persuade them that it
was good, and the measure passed, the bill became law. But the audience he
addressed, though a popular, was by no means an ordinary one. It was
fickle and capricious to a degree exceeding that of all other popular
assemblies; it was critical, exacting, intellectual, in a still higher
degree. No audience has been more swayed by passion; none has been less
swayed by the pretence of it. Always accessible to flattery, Athens counts
as her two greatest orators the two men who never stooped to flatter her.
The regal tones of Pericles, the prophetic earnestness of Demosthenes, in
the response which each met, bear witness to the greatness of those who
heard them. Even Cleon owed his greatest triumphs to the plainness with
which he inveighed against the people's faults. Intolerant of inelegance
and bombast, the Athenians required not only graceful speech, but speech
to the point. Hence Demosthenes is of all ancient orators the most
business-like. Of all ancient orators, it has been truly said he would
have met with the best hearing from the House of Commons. Nevertheless
there is a great difference between Athenian and English eloquence. The
former was exclusively popular; the latter, in the strictest sense, is
hardly popular at all. The dignified representatives of our lower house
need no such appeals to popular passion as the Athenian assembly required;
only on questions of patriotism or principle would they be tolerated.
Still less does emotion govern the sedate and masculine eloquence of our
upper house, or the strict and closely-reasoned pleadings of our courts of
law. Its proper field is in the addresses of a popular member to one of
the great city constituencies. The best speeches addressed to hereditary
legislators or to elected representatives necessarily involve different
features from those which characterised orations addressed directly to the
entire nation assembled in one place. If oratory has lost in fire, it has
gained in argument. In its political sphere, it shows a clearer grasp of
the public interest, a more tenacious restriction to practical issues; in
its judicial sphere, a more complete abandonment of prejudice and passion,
and a subordination, immeasurably greater than at Athens, to the authority
of written law.
Let us now compare the general features of Greek and English eloquence
with those of Rome. Roman eloquence had this in common with Greek, that it
was genuinely popular. In their comitia the people were supreme. The
orator who addressed them must be one who by passion could enkindle
passion, and guide for his own ends the impulses of a vast multitude. But
how different was the multitude! Fickle, impressionable, vain; patriotic
too in its way, and not without a rough idea of justice. So far like that
of Greece; but here the resemblance ends. The mob of Rome, for in the
times of real popular eloquence it had come to that, was rude, fierce,
bloodthirsty: where Athens called for grace of speech, Rome demanded
vehemence; where Athens looked for glory or freedom, Rome looked for
increase of dominion, and the wealth of conquered kingdoms for her spoil.
That in spite of their fierce and turbulent audience the great Roman
orators attained to such impressive grandeur, is a testimony to the
greatness of the senatorial system which reared them. In some respects the
eloquence of Rome bears greater resemblance to that of England. For
several centuries it was chiefly senatorial. The people intrusted their
powers to the Senate, satisfied that it acted for the best; and during
this period eloquence was matured. That special quality, so well named by
the Romans _gravitas_, which at Athens was never reached, but which has
again appeared in England, owed its development to the august discipline
of the Senate. Well might Cineas call this body an assembly of kings.
Never have patriotism, tradition, order, expediency, been so powerfully
represented as there; never have change, passion, or fear had so little
place. We can well believe that every effective speech began with the
words, so familiar to us, _maiores nostri voluerunt_, and that it ended as
it had begun. The aristocratic stamp necessarily impressed on the debates
of such an assembly naturally recalls our own House of Lords. But the
freedom of personal invective was far wider than modern courtesy would
tolerate. And, moreover, the competency of the Senate to decide questions
of peace or war threw into its discussions that strong party spirit which
is characteristic of our Lower House. Thus the senatorial oratory of Rome
united the characteristics of that of both our chambers. It was at once
majestic and vehement, patriotic and personal, proud of traditionary
prestige, but animated with the consciousness of real power.
In judicial oratory the Romans, like the Greeks, compare unfavourably with
us. With more eloquence they had less justice. Nothing sets antiquity in a
less prepossessing light than a study of its criminal trials; nothing
seems to have been less attainable in these than an impartial sifting of
evidence. The point of law is obscured among overwhelming considerations
from outside. If a man is clearly innocent, as in the case of Roscius, the
enmity of the great makes it a severe labour to obtain an acquittal; if he
is as clearly guilty (as Cluentius would seem to have been), a skilful use
of party weapons can prevent a conviction. [1] The judices in the public
trials (which must be distinguished from civil causes tried in the
praetor's court) were at first taken exclusively from the senators.
Gracchus (122 B.C.) transferred this privilege to the Equites; and until
the time of Sulla, who once more reinstated the senatorial class (81
B.C.), fierce contests raged between the two orders. Pompey (55 B.C.),
following an enactment of Cotta (70 B.C.), threw the office open to the
three orders of Senators, Knights, and Tribuni Aerarii, but fixed a high
property qualification. Augustus added a fourth _decuria_ from the lower
classes, and Caligula a fifth, so that Quintilian could speak of a juryman
as ordinarily a man of little intelligence and no legal or general
knowledge. [2]
This would be of comparatively small importance if a presiding judge of
lofty qualifications guided, as with us, the minds of the jury through the
mazes of argument and sophistry, and set the real issue plainly before
them. But in Rome no such prerogative rested with the presiding judge, [3]
who merely saw that the provisions of the law under which the trial took
place were complied with. The judges, or rather jurors, were, in Rome as
in Athens, [4] both from their number and their divergent interests, open
to influences of prejudice or corruption, only too often unscrupulously
employed, from which our system is altogether exempt. In the later
republican period it was not, of course, ignorance (the jurors being
senators or equites) but bribery or partisanship that disgraced the
decisions of the bench. Senator and eques unceasingly accused each other
of venality, and each was beyond doubt right in the charge he made. [5] In
circumstances like these it is evident that dexterous manipulation or
passionate pleading must take the place of legitimate forensic oratory.
Magnificent, therefore, as are the efforts of the great speakers in this
field, and nobly as they often rise above the corrupt practice of their
time, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the iniquities of the
procedure, and to help regretting that talent so glorious was so often
compelled either to fail or to resort to unworthy methods of success.
At Rome public speaking prevailed from the first. In every department of
life it was necessary for a man to express in clear and vigorous language
the views he recommended. Not only the senator or magistrate, but the
general on the field of battle had to be a speaker. On his return from the
campaign eloquence became to him what strategy had been before. It was the
great path to civil honours, and success was not to be won without it.
There is little doubt that the Romans struck out a vein of strong native
eloquence before the introduction of Greek letters. Readiness of speech is
innate in the Italians as in the French, and the other qualities of the
Romans contributed to enhance this natural gift. Few remains of this
native oratory are left, too few to judge by. We must form our opinion
upon that of Cicero, who, basing his judgment on its acknowledged
political effects, pronounces strongly in its favour. The measures of
Brutus, of Valerius Poplicola, and others, testify to their skill in
oratory; [6] and the great honour in which the orator was always held, [7]
contrasting with the low position accorded to the poet, must have produced
its natural result. But though the practice of oratory was cultivated it
was not reduced to an art. Technical treatises were the work of Greeks,
and Romans under Greek influence. In the early period the "spoken word"
was all-important. Even the writing down of speeches after delivery was
rarely, if ever, resorted to. The first known instance occurs so late as
the war with Pyrrhus, 280 B.C., when the old censor Appius committed his
speech to writing, which Cicero says that he had read. The only exception
to this rule seems to have been the funeral orations, which may have been
written from the first, but were rarely published owing to the youth of
those who delivered them. The aspirant to public honours generally began
his career by composing such an oration, though in later times a public
accusation was a more favourite _début_. Besides Appius's; speech, we hear
of one by FABIUS CUNCTATOR, and of another by Metellus, and we learn from
Ennius that in the second Punic war (204 B.C.) M. CORNELIUS CETHEGUS
obtained the highest renown for his persuasive eloquence.
"Additur orator Cornelius suaviloquenti
Ore Cethegus ... is dictus popularibus olim ...
Flos delibatus populi Suadaeque medulla." [8]
The first name on which we can pronounce with confidence is that of Cato.
This great man was the first orator as he was the greatest statesman of
his time. Cicero [9] praises him as dignified in commendation, pitiless in
sarcasm, pointed in phraseology, subtle in argument. Of the 150 speeches
extant in Cicero's time there was not one that was not stocked with
brilliant and pithy sayings; and though perhaps they read better in the
shape of extracts, still all the excellences of oratory were found in them
as a whole; and yet no one could be found to study them. Perhaps Cicero's
language betrays the warmth of personal admiration, especially as in a
later passage of the same dialogue [10] he makes Atticus dissent
altogether from his own view. "I highly approve (he says) of the speeches
of Cato as compared with those of his own date, for though quite
unpolished they imply some original talent ... but to speak of him as an
orator equal to Lysias would indeed be pardonable irony if we were in
jest, but you cannot expect to approve it seriously to me and Brutus." No
doubt Atticus's judgment is based on too high a standard, for high finish
was impossible in the then state of the language. Still Cato wrote
probably in a designedly rude style through his horror of Greek
affectation. He is reported to have said in his old age (150 B.C.),
"_Caussurum illustrium quascunque defendi nunc cum maxime conficio
orationes_," [11] and these written speeches were no doubt improvements on
those actually delivered, especially as Valerius Maximus says of his
literary labours, [12] "_Cato Graecis literis erudiri concupivit, quam
sero inde cognoscimus quod etiam Latinas paene iam senex didicerit._" His
eloquence extended to every sort; he was a successful _patronus_ in many
private trials; he was a noted and most formidable accuser; in public
trials we find him continually defending himself, and always with success;
as the advocate or opponent of great political measures in the senate or
assembly he was at his greatest. Many titles of deliberative speeches
remain, _e.g._ "_de rege Attalo et vectigalibus Asiae_," "_ut plura aera
equestria fierent_," "_aediles plebis sacrosanctos esse_," "_de dote_" (an
attack upon the luxury of women), and others. His chief characteristics
were condensed force, pregnant brevity, strong common sense, galling
asperity. His orations were neglected for near a century, but in the
Claudian era began to be studied, and were the subjects of commentary
until the time of Servius, who speaks of his periods as ill-balanced and
unrhythmical (_confragosa_). [13] There is a most caustic fragment
preserved in Fronto [14] taken from the speech _de sumptu suo_,
recapitulating his benefits to the state, and the ingratitude of those who
had profited by them; and another from his speech against Minucius
Thermus, who had scourged ten men for some trivial offence [15] which in
its sarcasm, its vivid and yet redundant language, recalls the manner of
Cicero.
In Cato's time we hear of SER. FULVIUS and L. COTTA, SCIPIO AFRICANUS and
SULPICIUS GALLUS, all of whom were good though not first-rate speakers. A
little later LAELIUS and the younger SCIPIO (185-129 B.C.), whose speeches
were extant in the time of Cicero [16] and their contemporaries, followed
Cato's example and wrote down what they had delivered. It is not clear
whether their motive was literary or political, but more probably the
latter, as party feeling was so high at Rome that a powerful speech might
do good work afterwards as a pamphlet. [17] From the passages of Scipio
Aemilianus which we possess, we gather that he strove to base his style on
Greek models. In one we find an elaborate dilemma, with a taunting
question repeated after each deduction; in another we find Greek terms
contemptuously introduced much as they are centuries after in Juvenal; in
another we have a truly patrician epigram. Being asked his opinion about
the death of Gracchus, and replying that the act was a righteous one, the
people raised a shout of defiance,--_Taceant, inquit, quibus Italia
noverca non mater est, quos ego sub corona vendidi_--"Be silent, you to
whom Italy is a stepdame not a mother, whom I myself have sold at the
hammer of the auctioneer."
Laelius, surnamed _Sapiens_, or the philosopher (cons. 140), is well known
to readers of Cicero as the chief speaker in the exquisite dialogue on
friendship, and to readers of Horace as the friend of Scipio and Lucilius.
[18] Of his relative excellence as an orator, Cicero speaks with caution.
[19] He mentions the popular preference for Laelius, but apparently his
own judgment inclines the other way. "It is the manner of men to dislike
one man excelling in many things. Now, as Africanus has no rival in
martial renown, though Laelius gained credit by his conduct of the war
with Viriathus, so as regards genius, learning, eloquence, and wisdom,
though both are put in the first rank, yet all men are willing to place
Laelius above Scipio." It is certain that Laelius's style was much less
natural than that of Scipio. He affected an archaic vocabulary and an
absence of ornament, which, however, was a habit too congenial at all
times to the Roman mind to call down any severe disapproval. What Laelius
lacked was force. On one occasion a murder had been committed in the
forest of Sila, which the consuls were ordered to investigate. A company
of pitch manufacturers were accused, and Laelius undertook their defence.
At its conclusion the consuls decided on a second hearing. A few days
after Laelius again pleaded, and this time with an elegance and
completeness that left nothing to be desired. Still the consuls were
dissatisfied. On the accused begging Laelius to make a third speech, he
replied: "Out of consideration for you I have done my best. You should now
go to Ser. Galba, who can defend you with greater warmth and vehemence
than I." Galba, from respect to Laelius, was unwilling to undertake the
case; but, having finally agreed, he spent the short time that was left in
getting it by heart, retiring into a vaulted chamber with some highly
educated slaves, and remaining at work till after the consuls had taken
their seat. Being sent for he at last came out, and, as Rutilius the
narrator and eye-witness declared, with such a heightened colour and
triumph in his eyes that he looked like one who had already won his cause.
Laelius himself was present. The advocate spoke with such force and weight
that scarcely an argument passed unapplauded. Not only were the accused
released, but they met on all hands with sympathy and compassion. Cicero
adds that the slaves who had helped in the consultation came out of it
covered with bruises, such was the vigour of body as well as mind that a
Roman brought to bear on his case, and on the unfortunate instruments of
its preparation. [20]
GALBA (180-136 B.C.?) was a man of violence and bad faith, not for a
moment to be compared to Laelius. His infamous cruelty to the Lusitanians,
one of the darkest acts in all history, has covered his name with an
ineffaceable stain. Cato at eighty-five years of age stood forth as his
accuser, but owing to his specious art, and to the disgrace of Rome, he
was acquitted. [21] Cicero speaks of him as _peringeniosus sed non satis
doctus_, and says that he lacked perseverance to improve his speeches from
a literary point of view, being contented with forensic success. Yet he
was the first to apply the right sort of treatment to oratorical art; he
introduced digressions for ornament, for pathos, for information; but as
he never re-wrote his speeches, they remained unfinished, and were soon
forgotten--_Hanc igitur ob caussum videtur Laelii mens spirare etiam in
scriptis, Galbae autem vis occidisse_.
Laelius had embodied in his speeches many of the precepts of the Stoic
philosophy. He had been a friend of the celebrated Panaetius (186-126
B.C.) of Rhodes, to whose lectures he sent his own son-in-law, and
apparently others too. Eloquence now began to borrow philosophic
conceptions; it was no longer merely practical, but admitted of
illustration from various theoretical sources. It became the ambition of
cultivated men to fuse enlightened ideas into the substance of their
oratory. Instances of this are found in SP. MUMMIUS, AEMILIUS LEPIDUS, C.
FANNIUS, and the Augur MUCIUS SCAEVOLA, and perhaps, though it is
difficult to say, in Carbo and the two Gracchi. These are the next names
that claim our notice.
CARBO (164-119 B.C.), the supporter first of the Gracchi, and then of
their murderers, was a man of the most worthless character, but a bold
speaker, and a successful patron. In his time the _quaestiones perpetuae_
[22] were constituted, and thus he had an immense opportunity of enlarging
his forensic experience. He gained the reputation of being the first
pleader of his day; he was fluent, witty, and forcible, and was noted for
the strength and sweetness of his voice. Tacitus also mentions him with
respect in his dialogue _de Oratoribus_. [23]
The two GRACCHI were no less distinguished as orators than as champions of
the oppressed. TIBERIUS (169-133 B.C.) served his first campaign with
Scipio in Africa, and was present at the fall of Carthage. His personal
friendship for the great soldier was cemented by Scipio's union with his
only sister. The father of Gracchus was a man of sterling worth and
considerable oratorical gifts; his mother's virtue, dignity, and wisdom
are proverbial. Her literary accomplishments were extremely great; she
educated her sons in her own studies, and watched their progress with more
than a preceptor's care. The short and unhappy career of this virtuous but
imprudent man is too well known to need allusion here; his eloquence alone
will be shortly noticed. It was formed on a careful study of Greek
authors. Among his masters was Diophanes of Mitylene, who dwelt at Rome,
and paid the penalty of his life for his friendship for his pupil.
Tiberius's character was such as to call for the strongest expressions of
reverence even from those who disapproved his political conduct. Cicero
speaks of him as _homo sanctissimus_, and Velleius Paterculus says of him,
"_vita innocentissimus, ingenio florentissimus, proposito sanctissimus,
tantis denique ornatus virtutibus, quantas perfecta et natura et industria
mortalis conditio recipit_." His appearance formed an epoch in eloquence.
"The Gracchi employed a far freer and easier mode of speech than any of
their predecessors." [24] This may be accounted for partly through the
superiority of their inherited talent and subsequent education, but is due
far more to the deep conviction which stirred their heart and kindled
their tongue. Cato alone presents the spectacle of a man deeply impressed
with a political mission and carrying it into the arena of political
conflict, but the inspiration of Gracchus was of a far higher order than
that of the harsh censor. It was in its origin moral, depending on the
eternal principles of right and wrong, not on the accident of any
particular state or party in it. Hence the loftiness of his speech, from
which sarcasm and even passion were absent. In estimating the almost ideal
character of the enthusiasm which fired him we cannot forget that his
mother was the daughter of Scipio, of him who believed himself the special
favourite of heaven, and the communicator of divinely sent ideas to the
world. Unhappily we have no fragments of the orations of Gracchus; the
more brilliant fame of his brother has eclipsed his literary renown, but
we may judge of their special features by those of their author's
character, and be sure that while lacking in genius they were temperate,
earnest, pure, and classical. In fact the Gracchi may he called the
founders of classical Latin. That subdued power whose subtle influence
penetrates the mind and vanquishes the judgment is unknown in literature
before them. Whenever it appears it marks the rise of a high art, it
answers to the _vis temperata_ which Horace so warmly commends. The
younger son of Cornelia, C. GRACCHUS (154-121 B.C.), was of a different
temper from his brother. He was less of the moralist, more of the artist.
His feeling was more intense but less profound. His brother's loyalty had
been to the state alone; his was given partly to the state, partly to the
shade of his brother. In nearly every speech, in season and out of season,
he denounced his murder. "_Pessimi_ Tiberium meum fratrem, optimum virum,
interfecerunt." Such is the burden of his eloquence. If in Tiberius we see
the impressive calmness of reasoned conviction, in Caius we see the
splendid impetuosity of chivalrous devotion. And yet Caius was, without
doubt, the greater statesman of the two. The measures, into which his
brother was as it were forced, were by him well understood and
deliberately planned. They amounted to nothing less than a subversion of
the existing state. The senate destroyed meant Gracchus sovereign. Under
the guise of restoring to the people their supreme power, he paved the way
for the long succession of tyrants that followed. His policy mingled
patriotism and revenge. The corruption and oppression that everywhere
marked the oligarchical rule roused his just indignation; the death of his
brother, the death he foresaw in store for himself, stirred him into
unholy vengeance. Many of his laws were well directed. The liberal
attitude he assumed towards the provinces, his strong desire to satisfy
the just claims of the Italians to citizenship, his breaking down the
exclusive administration of justice, these are monuments of his far-seeing
statesmanship. But his vindictive legislation with regard to Popillius
Laenas, and to Octavius (from which, however, his mother's counsel finally
deterred him), and above all his creation of the curse of Rome, a hungry
and brutal proletariate, by largesses of corn, present his character as a
public man in darker colours. As Mommsen says, "Right and wrong, fortune
and misfortune, were so inextricably blended in him that it may well
beseem history in this case to reserve her judgment." [25] The discord of
his character is increased by the story that an inward impulse dissuaded
him at first from public life, that agreeably to its monitions he served
as Quaestor abroad, and pursued for some years a military career; but
after a time his brother's spirit haunted him, and urged him to return to
Rome and offer his life upon the altar of the great cause. This was the
turning-point of his career. He returned suddenly, and from that day
became the enemy of the senate, the avenger of his brother, and the
champion of the multitude. His oratory is described as vehement beyond
example; so carried away did he become, that he found it necessary to have
a slave behind him on the rostra, who, by playing a flute, should recall
him to moderation. [26] Cicero, who strongly condemned the man, pays the
highest tribute to his genius, saying in the Brutus: "Of the loftiest
talent, of the most burning enthusiasm, carefully taught from boyhood, he
yields to no man in richness and exuberance of diction." To which Brutus
assents, adding, "Of all our predecessors he is the only one whose works I
read." Cicero replies, "You do right in reading him; Latin literature has
lost irreparably by his early death. I know not whether he would not have
stood above every other name. His language is noble, his sentiments
profound, his whole style grave. His works lack the finishing touch; many
are admirably begun, few are thoroughly complete. He of all speakers is
the one that should be read by the young, for not only is he fit to
sharpen talent, but also to feed and nourish a natural gift." [27]
One of the great peculiarities of ancient eloquence was the frequent
opportunity afforded for self-recommendation or self-praise. That good
taste or modesty which shrinks from mentioning its own merits was far less
cultivated in antiquity than now. Men accepted the principle not only of
acting but of speaking for their own advantage. This gave greater zest to
a debate on public questions, and certainly sharpened the orator's powers.
If a man had benefited the state he was not ashamed to blazon it forth; if
another in injuring the state had injured him, he did not altogether
sacrifice personal invective to patriotic indignation. [28] The frequency
of accusations made this "art of self-defence" a necessity--and there can
be no doubt the Roman people listened with admiration to one who was at
once bold and skilful enough to sound his own praises well. Cicero's
excessive vanity led him to overdo his part, and to nauseate at times even
well-disposed hearers. From the fragments of Gracchus' speeches that
remain (unhappily very few) we should gather that in asserting himself he
was without a rival. The mixture of simplicity and art removes him at once
from Cato's bald literalism and Cicero's egotism. It was, however, in
impassioned attack that Gracchus rose to his highest tones. The terms
_Gracchi impetum_, [29] _tumultuator Gracchus_, [30] among the Latin
critics, and similar ones from Plutarch and Dio among the Greeks, attest
the main character of his eloquence. His very outward form paralleled the
restlessness of his soul. He moved up and down, bared his arm, stamped
violently, made fierce gestures of defiance, and acted through real
emotion as the trained rhetoricians of a later age strove to act by rules
of art. His accusation of Piso is said to have contained more maledictions
than charges; and we can believe that a temperament so fervid, when once
it gave the reins to passion, lost all self-command. It is possible we
might think less highly of Gracchus's eloquence than did the ancients, if
his speeches remained. Their lack of finish and repose may have been
unnoticed by critics who could hurl themselves in thought not merely into
the feeling but the very place which he occupied; but to moderns, whose
sympathy with a state of things so opposite must needs be imperfect, it is
possible that their power might not have compensated for the absence of
relief. Important fragments from the speech _apud Censores_ (124 B.C.),
from that _de legibus a se promulgatis_ (123 B.C.), and from that _de
Mithridate_ (123 B.C.), are given and commented on by Wordsworth.
Among the friends and opponents of the Gracchi were many orators whose
names are given by Cicero with the minute care of a sympathising
historian; but as few, if any, remains of their speeches exist, it can
serve no purpose to recount the list. Three celebrated names may be
mentioned as filling up the interval between C. Gracchus and M. Antonius.
The first of these is AEMILIUS SCAURUS (163-90? B.C.), the haughty chief
of the senate, the unscrupulous leader of the oligarchical party. His
oratory is described by Cicero [31] as conspicuous for dignity and a
natural but irresistible air of command; so that when he spoke for a
defendant, he seemed like one who gave his testimony rather than one who
pleaded. This want of flexibility unfitted him for success at the bar;
accordingly, we do not find that he was much esteemed as a patron; but for
summing up the debates at the Senate, or delivering an opinion on a great
public question, none could be more impressive. Speeches of his were
extant in Cicero's time; also an autobiography, which, like Caesar's
_Commentaries_, was intended to put his conduct in the most favourable
light; these, however, were little read. Scaurus lived to posterity, not
in his writings, but in his example of stern constancy to a cause. [32]
A man in many ways resembling him but of purer conduct, was RUTILIUS (158-
78 B.C.), who is said by Cicero to have been a splendid example of many-
sided culture. He was a scholar, a philosopher, a jurist of high repute, a
historian, and an orator, though the severity of the Stoic sect, to which
he adhered, prevented his striving after oratorical excellence. His
impeachment for malversation in Asia, and unjust condemnation to
banishment, reflect strongly on the formation of the Roman law-courts. His
pride, however, was in part the cause of his exile. For had he chosen to
employ Antonius or Crassus to defend him, an acquittal would at least have
been possible; but conscious of rectitude, he refused any patron, and
relied on his own dry and jejune oratory, and such assistance as his young
friend Cotta could give. Sulla recalled him from Smyrna, whither he had
repaired after his condemnation; but Rutilius refused to return to the
city which had unjustly expelled him.
Among the other aristocratic leaders, CATULUS, the "noble colleague" of
Marius [33] (cons. 102), must be mentioned. He was not a Stoic, and
therefore was free to chose a more ornamental method of speaking than
Rutilius. Cicero, with the partiality of a senatorial advocate, gives him
very high praise. "He was educated not in the old rough style, but in that
of our own day, or something more finished and elegant still. He had a
wide acquaintance with literature, the highest courtesy of life and
manners as well as of discourse, and a pure stream of genuine Latin
eloquence. This is conspicuous in all his works, but most of all, in his
autobiography, written to the poet A. Furius, in a style full of soft
grace recalling that of Xenophon, but now, unhappily, little, if at all,
read. In pleading he was successful but not eminent. When heard alone, he
seemed excellent, but when contrasted with a greater rival, his faults at
once appeared." His chief virtue seems to have been the purity of his
Latin idiom. He neither copied Greek constructions nor affected archaisms,
as Rutilius Scaurus, Cotta, and so many others in his own time, and
Sallust, Lucretius, and Varro in a later age. [34] The absence of any
recognised standard of classical diction made it more difficult than at
first appears for an orator to fix on the right medium between affectation
and colloquialism.
The era inaugurated by the Gracchi was in the highest degree favourable to
eloquence. The disordered state of the Republic, in which party-spirit had
banished patriotism and was itself surrendering to armed violence, called
for a style of speaking commensurate with the turbulence of public life.
Never in the world's history has fierce passion found such exponents in so
great a sphere. It is not only the vehemence of their language--that may
have been paralleled elsewhere--it is the _reality_ of it that impresses
us. The words that denounced an enemy were not idly flung into the forum;
they fell among those who had the power and the will to act upon them. He
who sent them forth must expect them to ruin either his antagonist or
himself. Each man chose his side, with the daggers of the other party
before his face. His eloquence, like his sword, was a weapon for life and
death. Only in the French Revolution have oratory and assassination thus
gone hand in hand. Demosthenes could lash the Athenians into enthusiasm so
great that in delight at his eloquence they forgot his advice. "I want
you," he said, "not to applaud me, but to march against Philip." [35]
There was no danger of the Roman people forgetting action in applause.
They rejoiced to hear the orator, but it was that he might impel them to
tumultuous activity; he was caterer not for the satisfaction of their
ears, but for the employment of their hands. Thus he paid a heavy price
for eminence. Few of Rome's greatest orators died in their beds. Carbo put
an end to his own life; the two Gracchi, Antonius, Drusus, Cicero himself,
perished by the assassin's hand; Crassus was delivered by sudden illness
from the same fate. It is not wonderful if with the sword hanging over
their heads, Roman orators attain to a vehemence beyond example in other
nations. The charm that danger lends to daring is nowhere better shown
than in the case of Cicero. Timid by nature, he not only in his speeches
hazarded his life, but even when the dagger of Antony was waiting for him,
he could not bring himself to flee. With the civil war, however, eloquence
was for a time suppressed. Neither argument nor menace could make head
against the furious brutality of Marius, or the colder butcheries of
Sulla. But the intervening period produced two of the greatest speakers
Rome ever saw, both of whom Cicero places at the very summit of their art,
between whom he professes himself unable to decide, and about whom he
gives the most authentic and copious account. These were the advocates M.
ANTONIUS (143-87 B.C.) and M. LICINIUS CRASSUS (140-91 B.C.).
Both of them spoke in the senate and assembly as well as in the courts;
and Crassus was perhaps a better political than forensic orator.
Nevertheless the criticism of Cicero, from which we gain our chief
knowledge, is mainly directed to their forensic qualifications; and it is
probable that at the period at which they flourished, the law-courts
offered the fullest combination of advantages for bringing out all the
merits of a speaker. For the comitia were moved solely by passion or
interest; the senate was swayed by party considerations, and was little
touched by argument; whereas the courts offered just enough necessity for
exact reasoning without at all resisting appeals to popular passion. Of
the two kinds of _judicia_ at Rome, the civil cases were little sought
after; the public criminal trials being those which the great _patroni_
delighted to undertake. A few words may not be out of place here on the
general division of cases, and the jurisdiction of the magistrates,
senate, and people, as it is necessary to understand these in order to
appreciate the special kind of oratory they developed.
There had been, previously to this period, two praetors in Rome, the
_Praetor Urbanus_, who adjudged cases between citizens in accordance with
civil law, and the _Praetor Peregrinus_, who presided whenever a foreigner
or alien was concerned, and judged according to the principles of natural
law. Afterwards six praetors were appointed; and in the time of Antonius
they judged not only civil but criminal cases, except those concerning the
life of a citizen or the welfare of the state, which the people reserved
for themselves. It must be remembered that the supreme judicial power was
vested in the sovereign people in their comitia; that they delegated it in
public matters to the senate, and in general legal cases to the praetor's
court, but that in every capital charge a final appeal to them remained.
The praetors at an early date handed over their authority to other judges,
chosen either from the citizens at large, or from the body of _Judices
Selecti_, who were renewed every year. These subsidiary judges might
consist of a single _arbiter_, of small boards of three, seven, or ten,
&c., or of a larger body called the _Centum viri_, chosen from the thirty-
five tribes, who sat all the year, the others being only appointed for the
special case. But over their decisions the praetor exercised a superior
supervision, and he could annul them on appeal. The authorities on which
the praetor based his practice were those of the Twelve Tables and the
custom-law; but he had besides this a kind of legislative prerogative of
his own. For on coming into office he had to issue an edict, called
_edictum perpetuum_, [36] specifying the principles he intended to guide
him in any new cases that might arise. If these were merely a continuation
of those of his predecessor, his edict was called _tralaticium_, or
"handed on." But more often they were of an independent character, the
result of his knowledge or his prejudices; and too often he departed
widely from them in the course of his year of office. It was not until
after the time of Crassus and Antonius that a law was passed enforcing
consistency in this respect (67 B.C.). Thus it was inevitable that great
looseness should prevail in the application of legal principles, from the
great variety of supplementary codes (edicta), and the instability of
case-law. Moreover, the praetor was seldom a veteran lawyer, but generally
a man of moderate experience and ambitious views, who used the praetorship
merely as a stepping-stone to the higher offices of state. Hence it was by
no means certain that he would be able to appreciate a complicated
technical argument, and as a matter of fact the more popular advocates
rarely troubled themselves to advance one.
Praetors also generally presided over capital trials, of which the proper
jurisdiction lay with the comitia. In Sulla's time their number was
increased to ten, and each was chairman of the _quaestio_ which sat on one
of the ten chief crimes, extortion, peculation, bribery, treason, coining,
forgery, assassination or poisoning, and violence. [37] As assessors he
had the _quaesitor_ or chief juror, and a certain number of the _Judices
Selecti_ of whom some account has been already given. The prosecutor and
defendant had the right of objecting to any member of the list. If more
than one accuser offered, it was decided which should act at a preliminary
trial called _Divinatio_. Owing to the desire to win fame by accusations,
this occurrence was not unfrequent.
When the day of the trial arrived the prosecutor first spoke, explaining
the case and bringing in the evidence. This consisted of the testimony of
free citizens voluntarily given; of slaves, wrung from them by torture;
and of written documents. The best advocates, as for instance Cicero in
his _Milo_, were not disposed, any more than we should be, to attach much
weight to evidence obtained by the rack; but in estimating the other two
sources they differed from us. We should give the preference to written
documents; the Romans esteemed more highly the declarations of citizens.
These offered a grander field for the display of ingenuity and
misrepresentation; it is, therefore, in handling these that the celebrated
advocates put forth all their skill. The examination of evidence over, the
prosecutor put forth his case in a long and elaborate speech; and the
accused was then allowed to defend himself. Both were, as a rule, limited
in point of time, and sometimes to a period which to us would seem quite
inconsistent with justice to the case. Instead of the strict probity and
perfect independence which we associate with the highest ministers of the
law, the Roman judices were often canvassed, bribed, or intimidated. So
flagitious had the practice become, that Cicero mentions a whole bench
having been induced by indulgences of the most abominable kind to acquit
Clodius, though manifestly guilty. We know also that Pompey and Antony
resorted to the practice of packing the forum with hired troops and
assassins; and we learn from Cicero that it was the usual plan for
provincial governors to extort enough not only to satisfy their own
rapacity, but to buy their impunity from the judges. [38]
Under circumstances like these we cannot wonder if strict law was little
attended to, and the moral principles that underlay it still less. The
chief object was to inflame the prejudices or anger of the jurors; or,
still more, to excite their compassion, to serve one's party, or to
acquire favour with the leading citizen. For example, it was a rule that
men of the same political views should appear on the same side. Cicero and
Hortensius, though often opposed, still retained friendly feelings for
each other; but when Cicero went over to the senatorial party, the last
bar to free intercourse with his rival was removed, since henceforward
they were always retained together.
With regard to moving the pity of the judges, many instances of its
success are related both in Greece and Rome. The best are those of Galba
and Piso, both notorious culprits, but both acquitted; the one for
bringing forward his young children, the other for prostrating himself in
a shower of rain to kiss the judges' feet and rising up with a countenance
bedaubed with mud! Facts like these, and they are innumerable, compel us
to believe that the reverence for justice as a sacred thing, so inbred in
Christian civilization, was foreign to the people of Rome. It is a gloomy
spectacle to see a mighty nation deliberately giving the rein to passion
and excitement heedless of the miscarriage of justice. The celebrated law,
re-enacted by Gracchus, "That no citizen should be condemned to death
without the consent of the people," banished justice from the sphere of
reason to that of emotion or caprice. As progress widens emotion
necessarily contracts its sphere; the pure light of reason raises her
beacon on high. When Antonius, the most successful of advocates, declared
that his success was due not to legal knowledge, of which he was
destitute, but to his making the judges pleased, first with themselves and
then with himself, we may appreciate his honesty; but we gladly
acknowledge a state of things as past and gone in which he could wind up
an accusation [39] with these words, "If it ever was excusable for the
Roman people to give the reins to their just excitement, as without doubt
it often has been, there has no case existed in which it was more
excusable than now."
Cicero regards the advent of these two men, M. Antonius and Crassus, as
analogous to that of Demosthenes and Hyperides at Athens. They first
raised Latin eloquence to a height that rivalled that of Greece. But
though their merits were so evenly balanced that it was impossible to
decide between them, their excellencies were by no means the same. It is
evident that Cicero preferred Crassus, for he assigns him the chief place
in his dialogue _de Oratore_, and makes him the vehicle of his own views.
Moreover, he was a man of much more varied knowledge than Antonius. An
opinion prevailed in Cicero's day that neither of them was familiar with
Greek literature. This, however, was a mistake. Both were well read in it.
But Antonius desired to be thought ignorant of it; hence he never brought
it forward in his speeches. Crassus did not disdain the reputation of a
proficient, but he wished to be regarded as despising it. These relics of
old Roman narrowness, assumed whether from conviction or, more probably,
to please the people, are remarkable at an epoch so comparatively
cultured. They show, if proof were wanted, how completely the appearance
of Cicero marks a new period in literature, for he is as anxious to
popularise his knowledge of Greek letters as his predecessors had been to
hide theirs. The advantages of Antony were chiefly native and personal;
those of Crassus acquired and artificial. Antony had a ready wit, an
impetuous flow of words, not always the best, but good enough for the
purpose, a presence of mind and fertility of invention that nothing could
quench, a noble person, a wonderful memory, and a sonorous voice the very
defects of which he turned to his advantage; he never refused a case; he
seized the bearings of each with facility, and espoused it with zeal; he
knew from long practice all the arts of persuasion, and was an adept in
the use of them; in a word, he was thoroughly and genuinely popular.
Crassus was grave and dignified, excellent in interpretation, definition,
and equitable construction, so learned in law as to be called the best
lawyer among the orators; [40] and yet with all this grace and erudition,
he joined a sparkling humour which was always lively, never commonplace,
and whose brilliant sallies no misfortune could check. His first speech
was an accusation of the renegade democrat Carbo; his last, which was also
his best, was an assertion of the privileges of his order against the
over-bearing insolence of the consul Philippus. The consul, stung to fury
by the sarcasm of the speaker, bade his lictor seize his pledges as a
senator. This insult roused Crassus to a supreme effort. His words are
preserved by Cicero [41]--"an tu, quum omnem auctoritatem universi ordinis
pro pignore putaris, eamque in conspectu populi Romani concideris, me his
existimas pignoribus posse terreri? Non tibi illa sunt caedenda, si
Crassum vis coercere; haec tibi est incidenda lingua; qua vel evulsa,
spiritu ipso libidinem tuam libertas mea refutabit." This noble retort,
spoken amid bodily pain and weakness, brought on a fever which within a
week brought him to the grave (91 B.C.), as Cicero says, by no means
prematurely, for he was thus preserved from the horrors that followed.
Antonius lived for some years longer. It was under the tyrannical rule of
Marius and Cinna that he met his end. Having found, through the
indiscretion of a slave, that he was in hiding, they sent hired assassins
to murder him. The men entered the chamber where the great orator lay, and
prepared to do their bloody work, but he addressed them in terms of such
pathetic eloquence that they turned back, melted with pity, and declared
they could not kill Antonius. Their leader then came in, and, less
accessible to emotion than his men, cut off Antonius' head and carried it
to Marius. It was nailed to the rostra, "exposed," says Cicero, "to the
gaze of those citizens whose interests he had so often defended."
After the death of these two great leaders, there appear two inferior men
who faintly reflect their special excellences. These are C. AURELIUS COTTA
(consul 75 B.C.) an imitator of Antonius, though without any of his fire,
and P. SULPICIUS RUFUS (fl. 121-88 B.C.) a bold and vigorous speaker, who
tried, without success, to reproduce the high-bred wit of Crassus. He was,
according to Cicero, [42] the most _tragic_ of orators. His personal gifts
were remarkable, his presence commanding, his voice rich and varied. His
fault was want of application. The ease with which he spoke made him
dislike the labour of preparation, and shun altogether that of written
composition. Cotta was exactly the opposite of Sulpicius. His weak health,
a rare thing among the Romans of his day, compelled him to practise a soft
sedate method of speech, persuasive rather than commanding. In this he was
excellent, but that his popularity was due chiefly to want of competitors
is shown by the suddenness of his eclipse on the first appearance of
Hortensius. The gentle courteous character of Cotta is well brought out in
Cicero's dialogue on oratory, where his remarks are contrasted with the
mature but distinct views of Crassus and Antonius, with the conservative
grace of Catulus, and the masculine but less dignified elegance of Caesar.
Another speaker of this epoch is CARRO, son of the Carbo already
mentioned, an adherent of the senatorial party, and opponent of the
celebrated Livius Drusus. On the death of Drusus he delivered an oration
in the assembly, the concluding words of which are preserved by Cicero, as
an instance of the effectiveness of the trochaic rhythm. They were
received with a storm of applause, as indeed their elevation justly
merits. [43] "_O Marce Druse, patrem appello; tu dicere solebas sacram
esse rempublicam; quicunque eam violavissent, ab omnibus esse ei poenas
persolatas. Patris dictum sapiens temeritas filii comprobavit._" In this
grand sentence sounds the very voice of Rome; the stern patriotism, the
reverence for the words of a father, the communion of the living with
their dead ancestors. We cannot wonder at the fondness with which Cicero
lingers over these ancient orators; while fully acknowledging his own
superiority, how he draws out their beauties, each from its crude
environment; how he shows them to be deficient indeed in cultivation and
learning, but to ring true to the old tradition of the state, and for that
very reason to speak with a power, a persuasiveness, and a charm, which
all the rules of polished art could never hope to attain.
In the concluding passage of the _De Oratore_ Catulus says he wishes
HORTENSIUS (114-50 B.C.) could have taken part in the debate, as he gave
promise of excelling in all the qualifications that had been specified.
Crassus replies--"He not only gives promise of being, but is already one
of the first of orators. I thought so when I heard him defend the cause of
the Africans during the year of my consulship, and I thought so still more
strongly when, but a short while ago, he spoke on behalf of the king of
Bithynia." This is supposed to have been said in 91 B.C., the year of
Crassus's death, four years after the first appearance of Hortensius. This
brilliant orator, who at the age of nineteen spoke before Crassus and
Scaevola and gained their unqualified approval, and who, after the death
of Antonius, rose at once into the position of leader of the Roman bar,
was as remarkable for his natural as for his acquired endowments. Eight
years senior to Cicero, "prince of the courts" [44] when Cicero began
public life, for some time his rival and antagonist, but afterwards his
illustrious though admittedly inferior coadjutor, and towards the close of
both of their lives, his intimate and valued friend; Hortensius is one of
the few men in whom success did not banish enjoyment, and displacement by
a rival did not turn to bitterness. Without presenting the highest virtue,
his career of forty-four years is nevertheless a pleasant and instructive
one. It showed consistency, independence, and honour; he never changed
sides, he never flattered the great, he never acquired wealth unjustly. In
these points he may be contrasted with Cicero. But on the other hand, he
was inactive, luxurious, and effeminate; not like Cicero, fighting to the
last, but retiring from public life as soon as he saw the domination of
Pompey or Caesar to be inevitable; not even in his professional labours
showing a strong ambition, but yielding with epicurean indolence the palm
of superiority to his young rival; still less in his home life and leisure
moments pursuing like Cicero his self-culture to develop his own nature
and enrich the minds and literature of his countrymen, but regaling
himself at luxurious banquets in sumptuous villas, decked with everything
that could delight the eye or charm the fancy; preserving herds of deer,
wild swine, game of all sorts for field and feast; stocking vast lakes
with rare and delicate fish, to which this brilliant epicure was so
attached that on the death of a favourite lamprey he shed tears; buying
the costliest of pictures, statues, and embossed works; and furnishing a
cellar which yielded to his unworthy heir 10,000 casks of choice Chian
wine. When we read the pursuits in which Hortensius spent his time, we
cannot wonder that he was soon overshadowed; the stuff of the Roman was
lacking in him, and great as were his talents, even they, as Cicero justly
remarks, were not calculated to insure a mature or lasting fame. They lay
in the lower sphere of genius rather than the higher; in a bright
expression, a deportment graceful to such a point that the greatest actors
studied from him as he spoke; in a voice clear, mellow, and persuasive; in
a memory so prodigious that once after being present at an auction and
challenged to repeat the list of sale, he recited the entire catalogue
without hesitation, like the sailor the points of his compass, backwards.
As a consequence he was never at a loss. Everything suggested itself at
the right moment, giving him no anxiety that might spoil the ease of his
manner and his matchless confidence; and if to all this we add a
copiousness of expression and rich splendour of language exceeding all
that had ever been heard in Rome, the encomiums so freely lavished on him
by Cicero both in speeches and treatises, hardly seem exaggerated.
There are few things pleasanter in the history of literature than the
friendship of these two great men, untinctured, at least on Hortensius's
part, by any drop of jealousy; and on Cicero's, though now and then
overcast by unworthy suspicions, yet asserted afterwards with a warm
generosity and manly confession of his weakness which left nothing to be
desired. Though there were but eight years between them, Hortensius must
be held to belong to the older period, since Cicero's advent constitutes
an era.
The chief events in the life of Hortensius are as follows. He served two
campaigns in the Social War (91 B.C.), but soon after gave up military
life, and took no part in the civil struggles that followed. His
ascendancy in the courts dates from 83 B.C. and continued till 70 B.C.
when Cicero dethroned him by the prosecution of Verres. Hortensius was
consul the following year, and afterwards we find him appearing as
advocate on the senatorial side against the self-styled champions of the
people, whose cause at that time Cicero espoused (_e.g._ in the Gabinian
and Manilian laws). When Cicero, after his consulship (63 B.C.), went over
to the aristocratic party, he and Hortensius appeared regularly on the
same side, Hortensius conceding to him the privilege of speaking last,
thus confessing his own inferiority. The party character of great criminal
trials has already been alluded to, and is an important element in the
consideration of them. A master of eloquence speaking for a senatorial
defendant before a jury of equites, might hope, but hardly expect, an
acquittal; and a senatorial orator, pleading before jurymen of his own
order needed not to exercise the highest art in order to secure a
favourable hearing. It has been suggested [45] that his fame is in part
due to the circumstance, fortunate for him, that he had to address the
courts as reorganised by Sulla. The coalition of Pompey, Caesar, and
Crassus (60 B.C.), sometimes called the _first Triumvirate_, showed
plainly that the state was near collapse; and Hortensius, despairing of
its restitution, retired from public life, confining himself to the duties
of an advocate, and more and more addicting himself to refined pleasures.
The only blot on his character is his unscrupulousness in dealing with the
judges. Cicero accuses him [46] of bribing them on one occasion, and the
fact that he was not contradicted, though his rival was present, makes the
accusation more than probable. The fame of Hortensius waned not only
through Cicero's superior lustre, but also because of his own lack of
sustained effort. The peculiar style of his oratory is from this point of
view so ably criticised by Cicero that, having no remains of Hortensius to
judge by, we translate some of his remarks. [47]
"If we inquire why Hortensius obtained more celebrity in his youth than in
his mature age, we shall find there are two good reasons. First because
his style of oratory was the Asiatic, which is more becoming to youth than
to age. Of this style there are two divisions; the one sententious and
witty, the sentiments neatly turned and graceful rather than grave or
sedate: an example of this in history is Timaeus; in oratory during my own
boyhood there was Hierocles of Alabanda, and still more his brother
Menecles, both whose speeches are, considering their style, worthy of the
highest praise. The other division does not aim at a frequent use of pithy
sentiment, but at rapidity and rush of expression; this now prevails
throughout Asia, and is characterised not only by a stream of eloquence
but by a graceful and ornate vocabulary: Aeschylus of Cnidos, and my own
contemporary Aeschines the Milesian, are examples of it. They possess a
fine flow of speech, but they lack precision and grace of sentiment. Both
these classes of oratory suit young men well, but in older persons they
show a want of dignity. Hence Hortensius, who excelled in both, obtained
as a young man the most tumultuous applause. For he possessed that strong
leaning for polished and condensed maxims which Menecles displayed; as
with whom, so with Hortensius, some of these maxims were more remarkable
for sweetness and grace than for aptness and indispensable use; and so his
speech, though highly strung and impassioned without losing finish or
smoothness, was nevertheless not approved by the older critics. I have
seen Philippus hide a smile, or at other times look angry or annoyed; but
the youths were lost in admiration, and the multitude was deeply moved. At
that time he was in popular estimation almost perfect, and held the first
place without dispute. For though his oratory lacked authority, it was
thought suitable to his age; but when his position as a consular and a
senator demanded a weightier style, he still adhered to the same; and
having given up his former unremitting study and practice, retained only
the neat concise sentiments, but lost the rich adornment with which in old
times he had been wont to clothe his thoughts."
The _Asiatic_ style to which Cicero here alludes, was affected, as its
name implies, by the rhetoricians of Asia Minor, and is generally
distinguished from the _Attic_ by its greater profusion of verbal
ornament, its more liberal use of tropes, antithesis, figures, &c. and,
generally, by its inanity of thought. Rhodes, which had been so well able
to appreciate the eloquence of Aeschines and Demosthenes, first opened a
crusade against this false taste, and Cicero (who himself studied at
Rhodes as well as Athens) brought about a similar return to purer models
at Rome. The Asiatic style represents a permanent type of oratorical
effort, the desire to use word-painting instead of life-painting,
turgidity instead of vigour, allusiveness instead of directness, point
instead of wit, frigid inflation instead of real passion. It borrows
poetical effects, and heightens the colour without deepening the shade. In
Greece Aeschines shows some traces of an Asiatic tendency as contrasted
with the soberer self-restraint of Demosthenes. In Rome Hortensius, as
contrasted with Cicero, and even Cicero himself, according to some
critics, as contrasted with Brutus and Calvus,--though this charge is
hardly well-founded,--in France Bossuet, in England Burke, have leaned
towards the same fault.
We have now traced the history of Roman Oratory to the time of Cicero, and
we have seen that it produces names of real eminence, not merely in the
history of Rome, but in that of humanity. The loss to us of the speeches
of such orators as Cato, Gracchus, Antonius, and Crassus is incalculable;
did we possess them we should be able form a truer estimate of Roman
genius than if we possessed the entire works of Ennius, Pacuvius, or
Attius. For the great men who wielded this tremendous weapon were all
burgesses of Rome, they had all the good and all the bad qualities which
that name suggests, many of them in an extraordinary degree. They are all
the precursors, models, or rivals of Cicero, the greatest of Roman
orators; and in them the true structure of the language as well as the
mind of Rome would have been fully, though unconsciously, revealed. If the
literature of a country be taken as the expression in the field of thought
of the national character as pourtrayed in action, this group of orators
would be considered the most genuine representative of Roman literature.
The permanent contributions to human thought would indeed have been few:
neither in eloquence nor in any other domain did Rome prove herself
creative, but in eloquence she at least showed herself beyond expression
masculine and vigorous. The supreme interest of her history, the massive
characters of the men that wrought it, would here have shown themselves in
the working; men whose natures are a riddle to us, would have stood out,
judged by their own testimony, clear as statues; and we should not have
had so often to pin our faith on the biassed views of party, or the
uncritical panegyrics of school-bred professors or courtly rhetoricians.
The next period shows us the culmination, the short bloom, and the sudden
fall of national eloquence, when with the death of Cicero the "Latin
tongue was silent," [48] and as he himself says, _clamatores_ not
_oratores_ were left to succeed him.