A Dialogue Concerning Oratory, Or The Causes Of Corrupt Eloquence by Cornelius Tacitus

C >> Cornelius Tacitus >> A Dialogue Concerning Oratory, Or The Causes Of Corrupt Eloquence

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

Need I observe to you, that in all I have said, I have not been
speaking of that temperate faculty [a] which delights in quiet times,
supported by its own integrity, and the virtues of moderation? I speak
of popular eloquence, the genuine offspring of that licentiousness, to
which fools and ill-designing men have given the name of liberty: I
speak of bold and turbulent oratory, that inflamer of the people, and
constant companion of sedition; that fierce incendiary, that knows no
compliance, and scorns to temporize; busy, rash, and arrogant, but, in
quiet and well regulated governments, utterly unknown. Who ever heard
of an orator at Crete or Lacedaemon? In those states a system of
rigorous discipline was established by the first principles of the
constitution. Macedonian and Persian eloquence are equally unknown.
The same may be said of every country, where the plan of government
was fixed and uniform.

At Rhodes, indeed, and also at Athens, orators existed without number,
and the reason is, in those communities the people directed every
thing; a giddy multitude governed, and, to say the truth, all things
were in the power of all. In like manner, while Rome was engaged in
one perpetual scene of contention; while parties, factions, and
internal divisions, convulsed the state; no peace in the forum, in the
senate no union of sentiment; while the tribunals of justice acted
without moderation; while the magistrates knew no bounds, and no man
paid respect to eminent merit; in such times it must be acknowledged
that Rome produced a race of noble orators; as in the wild
uncultivated field the richest vegetables will often shoot up, and
flourish with uncommon vigour. And yet it is fair to ask, Could all
the eloquence of the Gracchi atone for the laws which they imposed on
their country? Could the fame which Cicero obtained by his eloquence,
compensate for the tragic end to which it brought him [b]?

XLI. The forum, at present, is the last sad relic of ancient oratory.
But does that epitome of former greatness give the idea of a city so
well regulated, that we may rest contented with our form of
government, without wishing for a reformation of abuses? If we except
the man of guilt, or such as labour under the hard hand of oppression,
who resorts to us for our assistance? If a municipal city applies for
protection, it is, when the inhabitants, harassed by the adjacent
states, or rent and torn by intestine divisions, sue for protection.
The province, that addresses the senate for a redress of grievances,
has been oppressed and plundered, before we hear of the complaint. It
is true, we vindicate the injured, but to suffer no oppression would
surely be better than to obtain relief. Find, if you can, in any part
of the world a wise and happy community, where no man offends against
the laws: in such a nation what can be the use of oratory? You may as
well profess the healing art where ill health is never known. Let men
enjoy bodily vigour, and the practice of physic will have no
encouragement. In like manner, where sober manners prevail, and
submission to the authority of government is the national virtue, the
powers of persuasion are rendered useless. Eloquence has lost her
field of glory. In the senate, what need of elaborate speeches, when
all good men are already of one mind? What occasion for studied
harangues before a popular assembly, where the form of government
leaves nothing to the decision of a wild democracy, but the whole
administration is conducted by the wisdom of a single ruler? And
again; when crimes are rare, and in fact of no great moment, what
avails the boasted right of individuals to commence a voluntary
prosecution? What necessity for a studied defence, often composed in a
style of vehemence, artfully addressed to the passions, and generally
stretched beyond all bounds, when justice is executed in mercy, and
the judge is of himself disposed to succour the distressed?

Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my
eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic,
and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present
age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence,
the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would
now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times. Upon the
whole, since no man can enjoy a state of calm tranquillity, and, at
the same time, raise a great and splendid reputation; to be content
with the benefits of the age in which we live, without detracting from
our ancestors, is the virtue that best becomes us.

XLII. Maternus concluded [a] his discourse. There have been, said
Messala, some points advanced, to which I do not entirely accede; and
others, which I think require farther explanation. But the day is well
nigh spent. We will, therefore, adjourn the debate. Be it as you think
proper, replied Maternus; and if, in what I have said, you find any
thing not sufficiently clear, we will adjust those matters in some
future conference. Hereupon he rose from his seat, and embracing Aper,
I am afraid, he said, that it will fare hardly with you, my good
friend. I shall cite you to answer before the poets, and Messala will
arraign you at the bar of the antiquarians. And I, replied Aper, shall
make reprisals on you both before the school professors and the
rhetoricians. This occasioned some mirth and raillery. We laughed, and
parted in good humour.

END OF THE DIALOGUE.

NOTES ON THE DIALOGUE CONCERNING ORATORY.

The scene of the following Dialogue is laid in the sixth year of
Vespasian, A.U.C. 828. A.D. 75. The commentators are much divided in
their opinions about the real author; his work they all agree is a
masterpiece in the kind; written with taste and judgement;
entertaining, profound, and elegant. But whether it is to be ascribed
to Tacitus, Quintilian, or any other person whom they cannot name, is
a question upon which they have exhausted a store of learning. They
have given us, according to their custom, much controversy, and little
decision. In this field of conjecture Lipsius led the way. He
published, in 1574, the first good edition of Tacitus, with
emendations of the text, and not removed; he still remains in
suspense. _Cum multa dixerim, claudo tamen omnia hoc responso; MIHI
NON LIQUERE._ Gronovius Pichena, Ryckius, Rhenanus, and others, have
entered warmly into the dispute. An elegant modern writer has hazarded
a new conjecture. The last of Sir Thomas Fitzosborne's Letters is a
kind of preface to Mr. Melmoth's Translation of the Dialogue before
us. He says; of all the conversation pieces, whether ancient or
modern, either of the moral or polite kind, he knows not one more
elegantly written than the little anonymous Dialogue concerning the
rise and decline of eloquence among the Romans. He calls it anonymous,
though he is aware, that it has been ascribed not only to Tacitus and
Quintilian, but even to Suetonius. The reasons, however, are so
inconclusive, that he is inclined to give it to the younger Pliny. He
thinks it perfectly coincides with Pliny's age; it is addressed to one
of his particular friends, and is marked with similar expressions and
sentiments. But, with all due submission to Mr. Melmoth, his new
candidate cannot long hold us in suspense. It appears in the account
of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in which Pliny's uncle lost his
life. A.U.C. 832. A.D. 79, that Pliny was then eighteen years old,
and, as the Dialogue was in 828, he could then be no more than
fourteen; a time of life, when he was neither fit to be admitted to a
learned debate, nor capable of understanding it. Besides this, two
letters to his friend FABIUS are still extant; one in the first book,
epist. 11; the other, book vii. epist. 2. No mention of the Dialogue
occurs in either of those letters, nor in any other part of his works;
a circumstance, which could scarce have happened to a writer so
tenderly anxious about his literary character, if the work in question
had been the production of his part. Brotier, the last, and, it may be
said, the best of all the editors of Tacitus, is of opinion that a
tract, so beautiful and judicious, ought not, without better reasons
than have been as yet assigned, to be adjudged from Tacitus to any
other writer. He relies much on the first edition, which was published
at Venice (1468), containing the last six books of the Annals (the
first six not being then found), the five books of the History, and
the Dialogue, intitled, _Cornelii Taciti Equitis Romani Dialogus de
Oratoribus claris._ There were also in the Vatican, manuscript copies
of the Dialogue _de Oratoribus_. In 1515, when the six first Annals
were found in Germany, a new edition, under the patronage of Leo X.
was published by Beroaldus, carefully collated with the manuscript,
which was afterwards placed in the Florentine Library. Those early
authorities preponderate with Brotier against all modern conjecture;
more especially, since the age of Tacitus agrees with the time of the
Dialogue. He was four years older than his friend Pliny, and, at
eighteen, might properly be allowed by his friends to be of their
party. In two years afterwards (A.U. 830), he married Agricola's
daughter, and he expressly says, (Life of Agricola, sect. ix.) that he
was then a very young man. The arguments, drawn by the several
commentators from the difference of style, Brotier thinks are of no
weight. The style of a young author will naturally differ from what he
has settled by practice at an advanced period of life. This has been
observed in many eminent writers, and in none more than Lipsius
himself. His language, in the outset, was easy, flowing, and elegant;
but, as he advanced in years, it became stiff, abrupt, and harsh.
Tacitus relates a conversation on a literary subject; and in such a
piece, who can expect to find the style of an historian or an
annalist? For these reasons Brotier thinks that this Dialogue may,
with good reason, be ascribed to Tacitus. The translator enters no
farther into the controversy, than to say, that in a case where
certainty cannot be obtained, we must rest satisfied with the best
evidence the nature of the thing will admit. The dispute is of no
importance; for, as Lipsius says, whether we give the Dialogue to
Quintilian or to Tacitus, no inconvenience can arise. Whoever was the
author, it is a performance of uncommon beauty.

Before we close this introduction, it will not be improper to say a
word or two about Brotier's Supplement. In the wreck of ancient
literature a considerable part of this Dialogue has perished, and, by
consequence, a chasm is left, much to be lamented by every reader of
taste. To avoid the inconvenience of a broken context, Brotier has
endeavoured to compensate for the loss. What he has added, will be
found in the progress of the work; and as it is executed by the
learned editor with great elegance, and equal probability, it is hoped
that the insertion of it will be more agreeable to the reader, than a
dull pause of melancholy regret.

Section I.

[a] Justus Fabius was consul A.U.C. 864, A.D. 111. But as he did not
begin the year, his name does not appear in the FASTI CONSULARES.
There are two letters to him from his friend Pliny; the first, lib. i.
epist. 11; the other, lib. vii. ep. 2. it is remarkable, that in the
last, the author talks of sending some of his writings for his
friend's perusal; _quaeram quid potissimum ex nugis meis tibi
exhibeam_; but not a word is said about the decline of eloquence.

Section II.

[a] Concerning Maternus nothing is known with any kind of certainty.
Dio relates that a sophist, of that name, was put to death by
Domitian, for a school declamation against tyrants: but not one of the
commentators ventures to assert that he was the _Curiatius Maternus_,
who makes so conspicuous a figure in the Dialogue before us.

[b] No mention is made of Marcus Aper, either by Quintilian or Pliny.
It is supposed that he was father of Marcus Flavius Aper, who was
substituted consul A.U.C. 883, A.D. 130. His oratorical character, and
that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not
unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he
says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he
wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the
good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on
the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater
magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void
of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their
popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not
knowing them. _Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam
existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum
hominum in omni genere prudentiam Graecis anteferre. Antonius autem
probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omnino didicisse
nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter
contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Graecos videretur._ Cicero _De Orat._
lib. ii. cap. 1.

[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he
had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to
posterity among the most celebrated orators. He would have added, and
he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his
oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in
argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the
choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some
degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable
name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with
grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed
his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate;
and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy
with which his meaning was conveyed. _Julio Secundo, si longior
contigisset aetas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros
foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, caeteris virtutibus suis,
quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et
saepius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Caeterum interceptus
quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum
dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quae assumpta sunt, proprietas;
tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia._ Quintil. lib.
x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman
orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The
Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men
who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have
been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth
recording.

Section III.

[a] Thyestes was a common and popular subject of ancient tragedy.

Indignatur item privatis, et prope socco
Dignis carminibus narrari coena Thyestae.
HORAT. ARS POET. ver. 90.

[b] It was the custom of the colonies and municipal towns, to pay
their court to some great orator at Rome, in order to obtain his
patronage, whenever they should have occasion to apply to the senate
for a redress of grievances.

[c] Domitius was another subject of tragedy, taken from the Roman
story. Who he was, does not clearly appear. Brotier thinks it was
Domitius, the avowed enemy of Julius Caesar, who moved in the senate
for a law to recall that general from the command of the army in Gaul,
and, afterwards, on the breaking out of the civil war, fell bravely
at the battle of Pharsalia. See Suetonius, Life of Nero, section 2.
Such a character might furnish the subject of a tragedy. The Roman
poets were in the habit of enriching their drama with domestic
occurrences, and the practice was applauded by Horace.

Nec minimum meruere decus, vestigia Graeca
Ausi deserere, et celebrare domestica facta.
ARS POET. ver. 286.

No path to fame our poets left untried;
Nor small their merit, when with conscious pride
They scorn'd to take from Greece the storied theme,
But dar'd to sing their own domestic fame.
FRANCIS'S HORACE.

Section V.

[a] There were at Rome several eminent men of the name of Bassus.
With regard to the person here called Saleius Bassus, the commentators
have not been able to glean much information. Some have contended that
it was to him Persius addressed his sixth satire:

Admovit jam bruma foco te, Basse, Sabino.

But if we may believe the old scholiast, his name was CAESIUS BASSUS, a
much admired lyric poet, who was living on his own farm, at the time
when Mount Vesuvius discharged its torrents of fire, and made the
country round a scene of desolation. The poet and his house were
overwhelmed by the eruption of the lava, which happened A.U. 832, in
the reign of Titus. Quintilian says of him (b. x. chap. 1.), that if
after Horace any poet deserves to be mentioned, Caesius Bassus was the
man. _Si quem adjicere velis, is erit Caesius Bassus._ Saleius Bassus
is mentioned by Juvenal as an eminent poet in distress:

----At Serrano tenuique Saleio
Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est?
SAT. vii. ver. 80.

But to poor Bassus what avails a name,
To starve on compliments and empty fame!
DRYDEN'S JUVENAL.

Quintilian says, he possessed a poetic genius, but so warm and
vehement, that, even in an advanced age, his spirit was not under the
control of sober judgement. _Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEII
BASSI fuit; nec ipsum senectute maturum._ This passage affords an
insuperable argument against Lipsius, and the rest of the critics who
named Quintilian as a candidate for the honour of this elegant
composition. Can it be imagined that a writer of fair integrity, would
in his great work speak of Bassus as he deserved, and in the Dialogue
overrate him beyond all proportion? Duplicity was not a part of
Quintilian's character.

[b] Tacitus, it may be presumed with good reason, was a diligent
reader of Cicero, Livy, Sallust, and Seneca. He has, in various parts
of his works, coincidences of sentiment and diction, that plainly shew
the source from which they sprung. In the present case, when he calls
eloquence a buckler to protect yourself, and a weapon to annoy your
adversary, can anyone doubt but he had his eye on the following
sentence in _Cicero de Oratore_? _Quid autem tam necessarium, quam
tenere semper arma, quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis, vel provocare
integros, et te ulcisci lacessitus?_

[c] Eprius Marcellus is often a conspicuous figure in the Annals and
the History of Tacitus. To a bad heart he united the gift of
eloquence. In the Annals, b. xvi. s. 28, he makes a vehement speech
against Paetus Thrasea, and afterwards wrought the destruction of that
excellent man. For that exploit, he was attacked, in the beginning of
Vespasian's reign, by Helvidius Priscus. In the History (book iv. s. 7
and 8) we see them both engaged in a violent contention. In the
following year (823), Helvidius in the senate opened an accusation in
form; but Marcellus, by using his eloquence as his buckler and his
offensive weapon, was able to ward off the blow. He rose from his
seat, and, "I leave you," he said, "I leave you to give the law to the
senate: reign, if you will, even in the presence of the prince." See
Hist. iv. s. 43. See also, Life of Agricola, s. 11. notes a and b.

Section VI.

[a] To be rich and have no issue, gave to the person so circumstanced
the highest consequence at Rome. All ranks of men paid their court to
him. To discourage a life of celibacy, and promote population,
Augustus passed a law, called _Papia Poppaea_, whereby bachelors were
subjected to penalties. Hence the compliment paid by Horace to his
patron:

Diva producas sobolem, patrumque
Prosperes decreta super jugandis
Foeminis, prolisque novae feraci
Lege marita.
CARMEN SAECULARE.

Bring the springing birth to light,
And with ev'ry genial grace
Prolific of an endless race,
Oh! crown our vows, and bless the nuptial rite.
FRANCIS'S HORACE.

But marriage was not brought into fashion. In proportion to the rapid
degeneracy of the manners under the emperors, celibacy grew into
respect; insomuch, that we find (Annals xii. s. 52) a man too strong
for his prosecutors, because he was rich, old, and childless.
_Valuitque pecuniosa orbitate et senecta._

[b] The faculty of speaking on a sudden question, with unpremeditated
eloquence, Quintilian says, is the reward of study and diligent
application. The speech, composed at leisure, will often want the
warmth and energy, which accompany the rapid emotions of the mind. The
passions, when roused and animated, and the images which present
themselves in a glow of enthusiasm, are the inspirers of true
eloquence. Composition has not always this happy effect; the process
is slow; languor is apt to succeed; the passions subside, and the
spirit of the discourse evaporates. _Maximus vero studiorum fructus
est, et velut praemium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris, ex tempore
dicendi facultas. Pectus est enim quod disertos facit, et vis mentis.
Nam bene concepti affectus, et recentes rerum imagines, continuo
impetu feruntur, quae nonnunquam mora stili refrigescunt, et dilatae won
revertuntur._ Quintilian. lib. x. cap. 7.

Section VII.

[a] The translation is not quite accurate in this place. The original
says, when I obtained the _laticlave_, and the English calls it the
_manly gown_, which, it must be admitted, is not the exact sense. The
_toga virilis_, or the _manly gown_, was assumed, when the youth came
to man's estate, or the age of seventeen years. On that occasion the
friends of the young man conducted him to the _forum_ (or sometimes to
the capitol), and there invested him with the new gown. This was
called _dies tirocinii_; the day on which he commenced a _tiro_, or a
candidate for preferment in the army. The _laticlave_, was an
additional honour often granted at the same time. The sons of senators
and patricians were entitled to that distinction, as a matter of
right: but the young men, descended from such as were not patricians,
did not wear the _laticlave_, till they entered into the service of
the commonwealth, and undertook the functions of the civil magistracy.
Augustus Caesar changed that custom. He gave leave to the sons of
senators, in general, to assume the _laticlave_ presently after the
time of putting on the _toga virilis_, though they were not capable of
civil honours. The emperors who succeeded, allowed the same privilege,
as a favour to illustrious families. _Ovid_ speaks of himself and his
brother assuming the _manly gown_ and the _laticlave_ at the same
time:

Interea, tacito passu labentibus annis,
Liberior fratri sumpta mihique toga;
Induiturque humeris cum lato purpura clavo.

Pliny the younger shews, that the _laticlave_ was a favour granted by
the emperor on particular occasions. He says, he applied for his
friend, and succeeded: _Ego Sexto latumclavum a Caesare nostro
impetravi._ Lib. ii. epist. 9. The _latusclavus_ was a robe worn by
consuls, praetors, generals in triumph, and senators, who were called
_laticlavii_. Their sons were admitted to the same honour; but the
emperors had a power to bestow this garment of distinction, and all
privileges belonging to it, upon such as they thought worthy of that
honour. This is what Marcus Aper says, in the Dialogue, that he
obtained; and, when the translation mentions the _manly gown_, the
expression falls short of the speaker's idea. Dacier has given an
account of the _laticlave_, which has been well received by the
learned. He tells us, that whatever was made to be put on another
thing, was called _clavus_, not because it had any resemblance to a
nail, but because it was made an adjunct to another subject. In fact,
the _clavi_ were purple galloons, with which the Romans bordered the
fore part of the tunic, on both sides, and when drawn close together,
they formed an ornament in the middle of the vestment. It was, for
that reason, called by the Greeks, [Greek: mesoporphuron]. The broad
galloons made the _laticlave_, and the narrow the _angusticlave_. The
_laticlave_, Dacier adds, is not to be confounded with the _praetexta_.
The latter was, at first, appropriated to the magistrates, and the
sacerdotal order; but, in time, was extended to the sons of eminent
families, to be worn as a mark of distinction, till the age of
seventeen, when it was laid aside for the _manly gown_. See Dacier's
_Horace_, lib. i. sat. 5; and see Kennet's _Roman Antiquities_, p.
306.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17