disgusted with the political dissensions of the capital, had retired,
during part of the summer, to the country: But, according to the
supposition of the piece, the dialogue occurred in 662. The author
addresses it to his brother in a dedication, strongly expressive of his
fondness for study; and, after some general observations on the difficulty
of the oratoric art, and the numerous accomplishments requisite to form a
complete orator, he introduces his dialogue, or rather the three
dialogues, of which the performance consists. Dialogue writing may be
executed either as direct conversation, in which none but the speakers
appear, and where, as in the scenes of a play, no information is afforded
except from what the persons of the drama say to each other; or as the
recital of the conversation, where the author himself appears, and after a
preliminary detail concerning the persons of the dialogue, and the
circumstances of time and place in which it was held, proceeds to give an
account of what passed in the discourse at which he had himself been
present, or the import of which was communicated to him by some one who
had attended and borne his part in the conference. It is this latter
method that has been followed by Cicero, in his dialogues _De Oratore_. He
mentions in his own person, that during the celebration of certain
festivals at Rome, the orator Crassus retired to his villa at Tusculum,
one of the most delightful retreats in Italy, whither he was accompanied
by Antony, his most intimate friend in private life, but most formidable
rival in the Forum; and by his father-in-law, Scævola, who was the
greatest jurisconsult of his age, and whose house in the city was resorted
to as an oracle, by men of the highest rank and dignity. Crassus was also
attended by Cotta and Sulpicius, at that time the two most promising
orators of Rome, the former of whom afterwards related to Cicero (for the
author is not supposed to be personally present) the conversation which
passed among these distinguished men, as they reclined on the benches
under a planetree, that grew on one of the walks surrounding the villa. It
is not improbable, that some such conversation may have been actually
held, and that Cicero, notwithstanding his age, and the authority derived
from his rhetorical reputation, may have chosen to avail himself of the
circumstance, in order to shelter his opinions under those of two ancient
masters, who, previously to his own time, were regarded as the chief
organs of Roman eloquence.
Crassus, in order to dissipate the gloom which had been occasioned by a
serious and even melancholy conversation, on the situation of public
affairs, turned the discourse on oratory. The sentiments which he
expresses on this subject are supposed to be those which Cicero himself
entertained. In order to excite the two young men, Cotta and Sulpicius, to
prosecute with ardour the career they had so successfully commenced, he
first enlarges on the utility and excellence of oratory; and then,
proceeding to the object which he had principally in view, he contends
that an almost universal knowledge is essentially requisite to perfection
in this noble art. He afterwards enumerates those branches of knowledge
which the orator should acquire, and the purposes to which he should apply
them: he inculcates the necessity of an acquaintance with the antiquities,
manners, and constitution of the republic—the constant exercise of written
composition—the study of gesture at the theatre—the translation of the
Greek orators—reading and commenting on the philosophers, reading and
criticizing the poets. The question hence arises, whether a knowledge of
the civil law be serviceable to the orator? Crassus attempts to prove its
utility from various examples of cases, where its principles required to
be elucidated; as also from the intrinsic nobleness of the study itself,
and the superior excellence of the Roman law to all other systems of
jurisprudence. Antony, who was a mere practical pleader, considered
philosophy and civil law as useless to the orator, being foreign to the
real business of life. He conceived that eloquence might subsist without
them, and that with regard to the other accomplishments enumerated by
Crassus, they were totally distinct from the proper office and duty of a
public speaker. It is accordingly agreed, that on the following day Antony
should state his notions of the acquirements appropriate to an orator.
Previous to the commencement of the second conversation, the party is
joined by Catulus and Julius Cæsar, (grand-uncle to the Dictator,) two of
the most eminent orators of the time, the former being distinguished by
his elegance and purity of diction, the latter by his turn for pleasantry.
Having met Scævola, on his way from Tusculum to the villa of Lælius, and
having heard from him of the interesting conversation which had been held,
the remainder of which had been deferred till the morrow, they came over
from a neighbouring villa to partake of the instruction and entertainment.
In their presence, and in that of Crassus, Antony maintains his favourite
system, that eloquence is not an art, because it depends not on knowledge.
Imitation of good models, practice, and minute attention to each
particular case, which should be scrupulously examined in all its
bearings, are laid down by him as the foundations of forensic eloquence.
The great objects of an orator being, in the first place, to recommend
himself to his clients, and then to prepossess the audience and judges in
their favour, Antony enlarges on the practice of the bar, in conciliating,
informing, moving, and undeceiving those on whom the decision of causes
depends; all which is copiously illustrated by examples drawn from
particular questions, which had occurred at Rome in cases of proof, strict
law, or equity. The chief weight and importance is attributed to moving
the springs of the passions. Among the methods of conciliation and
prepossession, humour and drollery are particularly mentioned. Cæsar being
the oratorical wit of the party, is requested to give some examples of
forensic jests. Those he affords are for the most part wretched quibbles,
or personal reflections on the opposite parties, and their witnesses. The
length of the dissertation, however, on this topic, shows the important
share it was considered as occupying among the qualifications of the
ancient orator.
Antony having thus explained the mechanical part of the orator’s duty, it
is agreed, that in the afternoon Crassus should enter on the
embellishments of rhetoric. In the execution of the task assigned him, he
treats of all that relates to what may be called the ornamental part of
oratory—pronunciation, elocution, harmony of periods, metaphors,
sentiments, action, (which he terms the predominant power in eloquence,)
expression of countenance, modulation of voice, and all those properties
which impart a finished grace and dignity to a public discourse.
Cicero himself highly approved of this treatise on Oratory, and his
friends regarded it as one of his best productions. The style of the
dialogue is copious, without being redundant, as is sometimes the case in
the orations. It is admirable for the diversity of character in the
speakers, the general conduct of the piece, and the variety of matter it
contains. It comprehends, I believe, everything valuable in the Greek
works on rhetoric, and also many excellent observations, suggested by the
author’s long experience, acquired in the numerous causes, both public and
private, which he conducted in the Forum, and the important discussions in
which he swayed the counsels of the Senate. As a composition, however, I
cannot consider the dialogue _De Oratore_ altogether faultless. It is too
little dramatic for a dialogue, and occasionally it expands into continued
dissertation; while, at the same time, by adopting the form of dialogue, a
rambling and desultory effect is produced in the discussion of a subject,
where, of all others, method and close connection were most desirable.
There is also frequently an assumed liveliness of manner, which seems
forced and affected in these grave and consular orators.
The dialogue entitled _Brutus, sive De Claris Oratoribus_, was written,
and is also feigned to have taken place, after Cæsar had attained to
sovereign power, though he was still engaged in the war against Scipio in
Africa. The conference is supposed to be held among Cicero, Atticus, and
Brutus, (from whom it has received its name,) near a statue of Plato,
which stood in the pleasure-grounds of Cicero’s mansion, at Rome.
Brutus having experienced the clemency of the conqueror, whom he
afterwards sacrificed, left Italy, in order to amuse himself with an
agreeable tour through the cities of Greece and Asia. In a few months he
returned to Rome, resigned himself to the calm studies of history and
rhetoric, and passed many of his leisure hours in the society of Cicero
and Atticus. The first part of the dialogue, among these three friends,
contains a few slight, but masterly sketches, of the most celebrated
speakers who had flourished in Greece; but these are not so much mentioned
with an historical design, as to support by examples the author’s
favourite proposition, that perfection in oratory requires proficiency in
all the arts. The dialogue is chiefly occupied with details concerning
Roman orators, from the earliest ages to Cicero’s own time. He first
mentions such speakers as Appius Claudius and Fabricius, of whom he knew
nothing certain, whose harangues had never been committed to writing, or
were no longer extant, and concerning whose powers of eloquence he could
only derive conjectures, from the effects which they produced on the
people and Senate, as recorded in the ancient annals. The second class of
orators are those, like Cato the Censor, and the Gracchi, whose speeches
still survived, or of whom he could speak traditionally, from the report
of persons still living who had heard them. A great deal of what is said
concerning this set of orators, rests on the authority of Hortensius, from
whom Cicero derived his information(348). The third class are the deceased
contemporaries of the author, whom he had himself seen and heard; and he
only departs from his rule of mentioning no living orator at the special
request of Brutus, who expresses an anxiety to learn his opinion of the
merits of Marcellus and Julius Cæsar. Towards the conclusion, he gives
some account of his own rise and progress, of the education he had
received, and the various methods which he had practised in order to reach
those heights of eloquence he had attained.
This work is certainly of the greatest service to the history of Roman
eloquence; and it likewise throws considerable light on the civil
transactions of the republic, as the author generally touches on the
principal incidents in the lives of those eminent orators whom he
mentions. It also gives additional weight and authority to the oratorical
precepts contained in his other works, since it shows, that they were
founded, not on any speculative theories, but on a minute observation of
the actual faults and excellencies of the most renowned speakers of his
age. Yet, with all these advantages, it is not so entertaining as might be
expected. The author mentions too many orators, and says too little of
each, which gives his treatise the appearance rather of a dry catalogue,
than of a literary essay, or agreeable dialogue. He acknowledges, indeed,
in the course of it, that he had inserted in his list of orators many who
possessed little claim to that appellation, since he designed to give an
account of all the Romans, without exception, who had made it their study
to excel in the arts of eloquence.
The _Orator_, addressed to Brutus, and written at his solicitation, was
intended to complete the subjects examined in the dialogues, _De Oratore_,
and _De Claris Oratoribus_. It contains the description of what Cicero
conceived necessary to form a perfect orator,—a character which, indeed,
nowhere existed, but of which he had formed the idea in his own
imagination. He admits, that Attic eloquence approached the nearest to
perfection; he pauses, however, to correct a prevailing error, that the
only genuine Atticism is a correct, plain, and slender discourse,
distinguished by purity of style, and delicacy of taste, but void of all
ornaments and redundance. In the time of Cicero, there was a class of
orators, including several men of parts and learning, and of the first
quality, who, while they acknowledged the superiority of his genius, yet
censured his diction as not truely Attic, some calling it loose and
languid, others tumid and exuberant. These speakers affected a minute and
fastidious correctness, pointed sentences, short and concise periods,
without a syllable to spare in them—as if the perfection of oratory
consisted in frugality of words, and the crowding of sentiments into the
narrowest possible compass. The chief patrons of this taste were Brutus
and Licinius Calvus. Cicero, while he admitted that correctness was
essential to eloquence, contended, that a nervous, copious, animated, and
even ornate style, may be truely Attic; since, otherwise, Lysias would be
the only Attic orator, to the exclusion of Isocrates, and even Demosthenes
himself. He accordingly opposed the system of these ultra-Attic orators,
whom he represents as often deserted in the midst of their harangues; for
although their style of rhetoric might please the ear of a critic, it was
not of that sublime, pathetic, or sonorous species, of which the end was
not only to instruct, but to move an audience,—whose excitement and
admiration form the true criterions of eloquence.
The remainder of the treatise is occupied with the three things to be
attended to by an orator,—what he is to say, in what order his topics are
to be arranged, and how they are to be expressed. In discussing the last
point, the author enters very fully into the collocation of words, and
that measured cadence, which, to a certain extent, prevails even in
prose;—a subject on which Brutus wished particularly to be instructed, and
which he accordingly treats in detail.
This tract is rather confusedly arranged; and the dissertation on prosaic
harmony, though curious, appears to us somewhat too minute in its object
for the attention of an orator. Cicero, however, set a high value on this
production; and, in a letter to Lepta, he declares, that whatever judgment
he possessed on the subject of oratory, he had thrown it all into that
work, and was ready to stake his reputation on its merits(349).
The _Topica_ may also be considered as another work on the subject of
rhetoric. Aristotle, as is well known, wrote a book with this title. The
lawyer, Caius Trebatius, a friend of Cicero, being curious to know the
contents and import of the Greek work, which he had accidentally seen in
Cicero’s Tusculan library, but being deterred from its study by the
obscurity of the writer, (though it certainly is not one of the most
difficult of Aristotle’s productions,) requested Cicero to draw up this
extract, or commentary, in order to explain the various _topics_, or
common-places, which are the foundation of rhetorical argument. Of this
request Cicero was some time afterwards reminded by the view of Velia,
(the marine villa of Trebatius,) during a coasting voyage which he
undertook, with the intention of retiring to Greece, in consequence of the
troubles which followed the death of Cæsar. Though he had neither
Aristotle nor any other book at hand to assist him, he drew it up from
memory as he sailed along, and finished it before he arrived at Rhegium,
whence he sent it to Trebatius(350).
This treatise shows, that Cicero had most diligently studied Aristotle’s
_Topics_. It is not, however, a translation, but an extract or explanation
of that work; and, as it was addressed to a lawyer, he has taken his
examples chiefly from the civil law of the Romans, which he conceived
Trebatius would understand better than illustrations drawn, like those of
Aristotle, from the philosophy of the Greeks.
It is impossible sufficiently to admire Cicero’s industry and love of
letters, which neither the inconveniences of a sea voyage, which he always
disliked, nor the harassing thoughts of leaving Italy at such a
conjuncture, could divert from the calm and regular pursuit of his
favourite studies.
The work _De Partitione Rhetorica_, is written in the form of a dialogue
between Cicero and his son; the former replying to the questions of the
latter concerning the principles and doctrine of eloquence. The tract now
entitled _De Optimo genere Oratorum_, was originally intended as a preface
to a translation which Cicero had made from the orations of Æschines and
Demosthenes in the case of Ctesipho, in which an absurd and trifling
matter of ceremony has become the basis of an immortal controversy. In
this preface he reverts to the topic on which he had touched in the
_Orator_—the mistake which prevailed in Rome, that Attic eloquence was
limited to that accurate, dry, and subtle manner of expression, adopted in
the orations of Lysias. It was to correct this error, that Cicero
undertook a free translation of the two master-pieces of Athenian
eloquence; the one being an example of vehement and energetic, the other
of pathetic and ornamental oratory. It is probable that Cicero was
prompted to these repeated inquiries concerning the genuine character of
Attic eloquence, from the reproach frequently cast on his own discourses
by Brutus, Calvus, and other sterile, but, as they supposed themselves,
truely Attic orators, that his harangues were not in the Greek, but rather
in the Asiatic taste,—that is, nerveless, florid, and redundant.
It appears, that in Rome, as well as in Greece, oratory was generally
considered as divided into three different styles—the Attic, Asiatic, and
Rhodian. Quintilian, at least, so classes the various sorts of oratory in
a passage, in which he also shortly characterizes them by those attributes
from which they were chiefly distinguishable. “Mihi autem,” says he,
“orationis differentiam fecisse et dicentium et audientium naturæ
videntur, quod _Attici_ limati quidem et emuncti nihil inane aut redundans
ferebant. _Asiana_ gens, tumidior alioquin et jactantior, vaniore etiam
dicendi gloria inflata est. Tertium mox qui hæc dividebant adjecerunt
genus _Rhodium_, quod velut medium esse, atque ex utroque mixtum
volunt(351).” Brutus and Licinius Calvus, as we have seen, affected the
slender, polished, and somewhat barren conciseness of Attic eloquence. The
speeches of Hortensius, and a few of Cicero’s earlier harangues, as that
for Sextus Roscius, afforded examples of the copious, florid, and
sometimes tumid style of Asiatic oratory. The latter orations of Cicero,
refined by his study and experience, were, I presume, nearly in the
Rhodian taste. That celebrated school of eloquence had been founded by
Æschines, the rival of Demosthenes, when, being banished from his native
city by the influence of his competitor, he had retired to the island of
Rhodes. Inferior to Demosthenes in power of argument and force of
expression, he surpassed him in copiousness and ornament. The school which
he founded, and which subsisted for centuries after his death, admitted
not the luxuries of Asiatic diction; and although the most ornamental of
Greece, continued ever true to the principles of its great Athenian
master. A chief part of the two years during which Cicero travelled in
Greece and Asia was spent at Rhodes, and his principal teacher of
eloquence at Rome was Molo the Rhodian, from whom he likewise afterwards
received lessons at Rhodes. The great difficulty which that rhetorician
encountered in the instruction of his promising disciple, was, as Cicero
himself informs us, the effort of containing within its due and proper
channel the overflowings of a youthful imagination(352). Cicero’s natural
fecundity, and the bent of his own inclination, preserved him from the
risk of dwindling into ultra-Attic slenderness; but it is not improbable,
that from the example of Hortensius and his own copiousness, he might have
swelled out to Asiatic pomp, had not his exuberance been early reduced by
the seasonable and salutary discipline of the Rhodian.
Cicero, in his youth, also wrote the _Rhetorica, seu de Inventione
Rhetorica_, of which there are still extant two books, treating of the
part of rhetoric that relates to invention. This is the work mentioned by
Cicero, in the commencement of the treatise _De Oratore_, as having been
published by him in his youth. It is generally believed to have been
written in 666, when Cicero was only twenty years of age, and to have
originally contained four books. Schütz, however, the German editor of
Cicero, is of opinion, that he never wrote, or at least, never published,
more than the two books we still possess.
A number of sentences in these two books of the _Rhetorica, seu de
Inventione_, coincide with passages in the _Rhetoricum ad Herennium_,
which is usually published along with the works of Cicero, but is not of
his composition. Purgold thinks that the _Rhetor. ad Herennium_ was
published first, and that Cicero copied from it those corresponding
passages(353). It appears, however, a little singular, that Cicero should
have borrowed so largely, and without acknowledgment, from a recent
publication of one of his contemporaries. To account for this difficulty
some critics have supposed, that the anonymous author of the _Rhetor. ad
Herennium_ was a rhetorician, whose lectures Cicero had attended, and had
inserted in his own work notes taken by him from these prelections, before
they were edited by their author(354). Some, again, have imagined, that
Cicero and the anonymous author were fellow-students under the same
rhetorician, and that both had thus adopted his ideas and expressions;
while others believe, that both copied from a common Greek original. But
then, in opposition to this last theory, it has been remarked, that the
Latin words employed by both are frequently the same; and there are the
same references to the history of Rome, and of its ancient native poets,
with which no Greek writer can be supposed to have had much acquaintance.
Who the anonymous author of the _Rhetor. ad Herennium_ actually was, has
been the subject of much learned controversy, and the point remains still
undetermined. Priscian repeatedly cites it as the work of Cicero; whence
it was believed to be the production of Cicero by Laurentius Valla, George
of Trebizond, Politian, and other great restorers of learning in the
fifteenth century; and this opinion was from time to time, though feebly,
revived by less considerable writers in succeeding periods. It seems now,
however, entirely abandoned; but, while all critics and commentators agree
in _abjudicating_ the work from Cicero, they differ widely as to the
person to whom the production should be assigned. Aldus Manutius,
Sigonius, Muretus, and Riccobonus, were of opinion, that it was written by
Q. Cornificius the elder, who was Cæsar’s Quæstor during the civil war,
and subsequently his lieutenant in Africa, of which province, after the
Dictator’s death, he kept possession for the republican party, till he was
slain in an engagement with one of the generals of Octavius. The judgment
of these scholars is chiefly founded on some passages in Quintilian, who
attributes to Cornificius several critical and philological definitions
which coincide with those introduced in the _Rhetorica ad Herennium_.
Gerard Vossius, however, has adopted an opinion, that if at all written by
a person of that name, it must have been by the younger Cornificius(355),
who was born in 662, and, having followed the party of Octavius, was
appointed Consul by favour of the Triumvirate in 718. Raphael Regius also
seems inclined to attribute the work to Cornificius the son(356). But if
the style be considered too remote from that of the age of Cicero, to be
ascribed to any of his contemporaries, he conceives it may be plausibly
conjectured to have been the production of Timolaus, one of the thirty
tyrants in the reign of Gallienus. Timolaus had a brother called
Herenianus, to whom his work may have been dedicated, and he thinks that
_Timolaus ad Herenianum_ may have been corrupted into _Tullius ad
Herennium_. J. C. Scaliger attributes the work to Gallio, a rhetorician in
the time of Nero(357)—an opinion which obtained currency in consequence of
the discovery of a MS. copy of the _Rhetorica ad Herennium_, with the name
of Gallio prefixed to it(358).