CICERO'S BRUTUS, OR

HISTORY OF FAMOUS ORATORS:

ALSO, HIS ORATOR, OR

ACCOMPLISHED SPEAKER. 

Now first translated into English by E. Jones

PREFACE. 

As the following Rhetorical Pieces have never appeared before in theEnglish language, I thought a Translation of them would be no unacceptableoffering to the Public. The character of the Author (Marcus TulliusCicero) is so universally celebrated, that it would be needless, andindeed impertinent, to say any thing to recommend them. 

The first of them was the fruit of his retirement, during the remains ofthe _Civil War_ in Africa; and was composed in the form of a Dialogue. Itcontains a few short, but very masterly sketches of all the Speakerswho had flourished either in Greece or Rome, with any reputation ofEloquence, down to his own time; and as he generally touches the principalincidents of their lives, it will be considered, by an attentive reader, as a _concealed epitome of the Roman history_. The conference is supposedto have been held with Atticus, and their common friend Brutus, inCicero's garden at Rome, under the statue of Plato, whom he alwaysadmired, and usually imitated in his dialogues: and he seems in this tohave copied even his _double titles_, calling it _Brutus, or the Historyof famous Orators_. It was intended as a _supplement_, or _fourth book_, to three former ones, on the qualifications of an Orator. 

The second, which is intitled _The Orator_, was composed a very short timeafterwards (both of them in the 61st year of his age) and at the requestof Brutus. It contains a plan, or critical delineation, of what he himselfesteemed the most finished Eloquence, or style of Speaking. He calls it_The Fifth Part, or Book_, designed to complete his _Brutus_, and _theformer three_ on the same subject. It was received with great approbation;and in a letter to Lepta, who had complimented him upon it, he declares, that whatever judgment he had in Speaking, he had thrown it all into thatwork, and was content to risk his reputation on the merit of it. But it isparticularly recommended to our curiosity, by a more exact account of therhetorical _composition_, or _prosaic harmony_ of the ancients, than is tobe met with in any other part of his works. 

As to the present Translation, I must leave the merit of it to be decidedby the Public; and have only to observe, that though I have not, to myknowledge, omitted a single sentence of the original, I was obliged, insome places, to paraphrase my author, to render his meaning intelligibleto a modern reader. My chief aim was to be clear and perspicuous: if Ihave succeeded in _that_, it is all I pretend to. I must leave it to ablerpens to copy the _Eloquence_ of Cicero. _Mine_ is unequal to the task. 

BRUTUS, OR THE HISTORY OF ELOQUENCE. 

When I had left Cilicia, and arrived at Rhodes, word was brought me of thedeath of Hortensius. I was more affected with it than, I believe, wasgenerally expected. For, by the loss of my friend, I saw myself for everdeprived of the pleasure of his acquaintance, and of our mutualintercourse of good offices. I likewise reflected, with Concern, that thedignity of our College must suffer greatly by the decease of such aneminent augur. This reminded me, that _he_ was the person who firstintroduced me to the College, where he attested my qualification uponoath; and that it was _he_ also who installed me as a member; so that Iwas bound by the constitution of the Order to respect and honour him as aparent. My affliction was increased, that, in such a deplorable dearth ofwife and virtuous citizens, this excellent man, my faithful associate inthe service of the Public, expired at the very time when the Commonwealthcould least spare him, and when we had the greatest reason to regret thewant of his prudence and authority. I can add, very sincerely, that in_him_ I lamented the loss, not (as most people imagined) of a dangerousrival and competitor, but of a generous partner and companion in thepursuit of same. For if we have instances in history, though in studies ofless public consequence, that some of the poets have been greatlyafflicted at the death of their contemporary bards; with what tenderconcern should I honour the memory of a man, with whom it is more gloriousto have disputed the prize of eloquence, than never to have met with anantagonist! especially, as he was always so far from obstructing _my_endeavours, or I _his_, that, on the contrary, we mutually assisted eachother, with our credit and advice. 

But as _he_, who had a perpetual run of felicity, left the world at ahappy moment for himself, though a most unfortunate one for his fellow-citizens; and died when it would have been much easier for him to lamentthe miseries of his country, than to assist it, after living in it as longas he _could_ have lived with honour and reputation;--we may, indeed, deplore his death as a heavy loss to _us_ who survive him. If, however, weconsider it merely as a personal event, we ought rather to congratulatehis fate, than to pity it; that, as often as we revive the memory of thisillustrious and truly happy man, we may appear at least to have as muchaffection for him as for ourselves. For if we only lament that we are nolonger permitted to enjoy him, it must, indeed, be acknowledged that thisis a heavy misfortune to _us_; which it, however, becomes us to supportwith moderation, less our sorrow should be suspected to arise from motivesof interest, and not from friendship. But if we afflict ourselves, on thesupposition that _he_ was the sufferer;--we misconstrue an event, which to_him_ was certainly a very happy one. 

If Hortensius was now living, he would probably regret many otheradvantages in common with his worthy fellow-citizens. But when he beheldthe Forum, the great theatre in which he used to exercise his genius, nolonger accessible to that accomplished eloquence, which could charm theears of a Roman, or a Grecian audience; he must have felt a pang of whichnone, or at least but few, besides himself, could be susceptible. Even _I_am unable to restrain my tears, when I behold my country no longerdefensible by the genius, the prudence, and the authority of a legalmagistrate, --the only weapons which I have learned to weild, and to whichI have long been accustomed, and which are most suitable to the characterof an illustrious citizen, and of a virtuous and well-regulated state. 

But if there ever was a time, when the authority and eloquence of anhonest individual could have wrested their arms from the hands of hisdistracted fellow-citizens; it was then when the proposal of a compromiseof our mutual differences was rejected, by the hasty imprudence of some, and the timorous mistrust of others. Thus it happened, among othermisfortunes of a more deplorable nature, that when my declining age, aftera life spent in the service of the Public, should have reposed in thepeaceful harbour, not of an indolent, and a total inactivity, but of amoderate and becoming retirement; and when my eloquence was properlymellowed, and had acquired its full maturity;--thus it happened, I say, that recourse was then had to those fatal arms, which the persons who hadlearned the use of them in honourable conquest, could no longer employ toany salutary purpose. Those, therefore, appear to me to have enjoyed afortunate and a happy life, (of whatever State they were members, butespecially in _our's_) who held their authority and reputation, either fortheir military or political services, without interruption: and the soleremembrance of them, in our present melancholy situation, was a pleasingrelief to me, when we lately happened to mention them in the course ofconversation. 

For, not long ago, when I was walking for my amusement, in a privateavenue at home, I was agreeably interrupted by my friend Brutus, and T. Pomponius, who came, as indeed they frequently did, to visit me;--twoworthy citizens who were united to each other in the closest friendship, and were so dear and so agreeable to me, that, on the first sight of them, all my anxiety for the Commonwealth subsided. After the usualsalutations, --"Well, gentlemen, " said I, "how go the times? What news haveyou brought?" "None, " replied Brutus, "that you would wish to hear, orthat I can venture to tell you for truth. "--"No, " said Atticus; "we arecome with an intention that all matters of state should be dropped; andrather to hear something from you, than to say any thing which might serveto distress you. " "Indeed, " said I, "your company is a present remedy formy sorrow; and your letters, when absent, were so encouraging, that theyfirst revived my attention to my studies. "--"I remember, " repliedAtticus, "that Brutus sent you a letter from Asia, which I read withinfinite pleasure: for he advised you in it like a man of sense, and gaveyou every consolation which the warmest friendship could suggest. "--"True, " said I, "for it was the receipt of that letter which recovered mefrom a growing indisposition, to behold once more the cheerful face ofday; and as the Roman State, after the dreadful defeat near Cannae, firstraised its drooping head by the victory of Marcellus at Nola, which wassucceeded by many other victories; so, after the dismal wreck of ouraffairs, both public and private, nothing occurred to me before the letterof my friend Brutus, which I thought to be worth my attention, or whichcontributed, in any degree, to the anxiety of my heart. "--"That wascertainly my intention, " answered Brutus; "and if I had the happiness tosucceed, I was sufficiently rewarded for my trouble. But I could wish tobe informed, what you received from Atticus which gave you such uncommonpleasure. "--"That, " said I, "which not only entertained me; but, I hope, has restored me entirely to myself. "--"Indeed!" replied he; "and whatmiraculous composition could that be?"--"Nothing, " answered I; "could havebeen a more acceptable, or a more seasonable present, than that excellentTreatise of his which roused me from a state of languor and despondency. "--"You mean, " said he, "his short, and, I think, very accurate abridgmentof Universal History. "--"The very same, " said I; "for that little Treatisehas absolutely saved me. "--"I am heartily glad of it, " said Atticus; "butwhat could you discover in it which was either new to you, or sowonderfully beneficial as you pretend?"--"It certainly furnished manyhints, " said I, "which were entirely new to me: and the exact order oftime which you observed through the whole, gave me the opportunity I hadlong wished for, of beholding the history of all nations in one regularand comprehensive view. The attentive perusal of it proved an excellentremedy for my sorrows, and led me to think of attempting something on yourown plan, partly to amuse myself, and partly to return your favour, by agrateful, though not an equal acknowledgment. We are commanded, it istrue, in that precept of Hesiod, so much admired by the learned, to returnwith the same measure we have received; or, if possible, with a larger. Asto a friendly inclination, I shall certainly return you a full proportionof it; but as to a recompence in kind, I confess it to be out of my power, and therefore hope you will excuse me: for I have no first-fruits (like aprosperous husbandman) to acknowledge the obligation I have received; mywhole harvest having sickened and died, for want of the usual manure: andas little am I able to present you with any thing from those hidden storeswhich are now consigned to perpetual darkness, and to which I am deniedall access; though, formerly, I was almost the only person who was able tocommand them at pleasure. I must therefore, try my skill in a long-neglected and uncultivated soil; which I will endeavour to improve with somuch care, that I may be able to repay your liberality with interest;provided my genius should be so happy as to resemble a fertile field, which, after being suffered to lie fallow a considerable time, produces aheavier crop than usual. "--"Very well, " replied Atticus, "I shall expectthe fulfilment of your promise; but I shall not insist upon it till itsuits your convenience; though, after all, I shall certainly be betterpleased if you discharge the obligation. "--"And I also, " said Brutus, "shall expect that you perform your promise to my friend Atticus: nay, though I am only his voluntary solicitor, I shall, perhaps, be verypressing for the discharge of a debt, which the creditor himself iswilling to submit to your own choice. "--"But I shall refuse to pay you, "said I, "unless the original creditor takes no farther part in the suit. "--"This is more than I can promise, " replied he, "for I can easilyforesee, that this easy man, who disclaims all severity, will urge hisdemand upon you, not indeed to distress you, but yet very closely andseriously. "--"To speak ingenuously, " said Atticus, "my friend Brutus, Ibelieve, is not much mistaken: for as I now find you in good spirits, forthe first time, after a tedious interval of despondency, I shall soon makebold to apply to you; and as this gentleman has promised his assistance, to recover what you owe me, the least I can do is to solicit, in my turn, for what is due to him. "

"Explain your meaning, " said I. --"I mean, " replied he, "that you mustwrite something to amuse us; for your pen has been totally silent thislong time; and since your Treatise on Politics, we have had nothing fromyou of any kind; though it was the perusal of that which fired me with theambition to write an Abridgment of Universal History. But we shall, however, leave you to answer this demand, when, and in what manner youshall think most convenient. At present, if you are not otherwise engaged, you must give us your sentiments on a subject on which we both desire tobe better informed. "--"And what is that?" said I. --"What you gave me ahasty sketch of, " replied he, "when I saw you last at Tusculanum, --theHistory of Famous Orators;--_when_ they made their appearance, and _who_and _what_ they were; which, furnished such an agreeable train ofconversation, that when I related the substance of it to _your_, or Iought rather to have said our _common_ friend, Brutus, he expressed aviolent desire to hear the whole of it from your own mouth. Knowing you, therefore, to be at leisure, we have taken the present opportunity to waitupon you; so that, if it is really convenient, you will oblige us both byresuming the subject. "--"Well, gentlemen, " said I, "as you are sopressing, I will endeavour to satisfy you in the best manner I am able. "--"You are _able_ enough, " replied he; "only unbend yourself a little, or, if you can set your mind at full liberty. "--"If I remember right, " said I, "Atticus, what gave rise to the conversation, was my observing, that thecause of Deiotarus, a most excellent Sovereign, and a faithful ally, waspleaded by our friend Brutus, in my hearing, with the greatest eleganceand dignity. "--"True, " replied he, "and you took occasion from the illsuccess of Brutus, to lament the loss of a fair administration of justicein the Forum. "--"I did so, " answered I, "as indeed I frequently do: andwhenever I see you, my Brutus, I am concerned to think where yourwonderful genius, your finished erudition, and unparalleled industry willfind a theatre to display themselves. For after you had thoroughlyimproved your abilities, by pleading a variety of important causes; andwhen my declining vigour was just giving way, and lowering the ensigns ofdignity to your more active talents; the liberty of the State received afatal overthrow, and that Eloquence, of which we are now to give theHistory, was condemned to perpetual silence. "--"Our other misfortunes, "replied Brutus, "I lament sincerely; and I think I ought to lament them:--but as to Eloquence, I am not so fond of the influence and the glory itbestows, as of the study and the practice of it, which nothing can depriveme of, while you are so well disposed to assist me: for no man can be aneloquent speaker, who has not a clear and ready conception. Whoever, therefore, applies himself to the study of Eloquence, is at the same timeimproving his judgment, which is a talent equally necessary in allmilitary operations. "

"Your remark, " said I, "is very just; and I have a higher opinion of themerit of eloquence, because, though there is scarcely any person sodiffident as not to persuade himself, that he either has, or may acquireevery other accomplishment which, formerly, could have given himconsequence in the State; I can find no person who has been made an oratorby the success of his military prowess. --But that we may carry on theconversation with greater ease, let us seat ourselves. "--As my visitorshad no objection to this, we accordingly took our seats in a private lawn, near a statue of Plato. 

Then resuming the conversation, --"to recommend the study of eloquence, "said I, "and describe its force, and the great dignity it confers uponthose who have acquired it, is neither our present design, nor has anynecessary connection with it. But I will not hesitate to affirm, thatwhether it is acquired by art or practice, or the mere powers of nature, it is the most difficult of all attainments; for each of the five branchesof which it is said to consist, is of itself a very important art; fromwhence it may easily be conjectured, how great and arduous must be theprofession which unites and comprehends them all. 

"Greece alone is a sufficient witness of this:--for though she was firedwith a wonderful love of Eloquence, and has long since excelled everyother nation in the practice of it, yet she had all the rest of the artsmuch earlier; and had not only invented, but even compleated them, aconsiderable time before she was mistress of the full powers of elocution. But when I direct my eyes to Greece, your beloved Athens, my Atticus, first strikes my sight, and is the brightest object in my view: for inthat illustrious city the _orator_ first made his appearance, and it isthere we shall find the earliest records of eloquence, and the firstspecimens of a discourse conducted by rules of art. But even in Athensthere is not a single production now extant which discovers any taste forornament, or seems to have been the effort of a real orator, before thetime of Pericles (whose name is prefixed to some orations which stillremain) and his cotemporary Thucydides; who flourished, --not in theinfancy of the State, but when it was arrived at its full maturity ofpower. 

"It is, however, supposed, that Pisistratus (who lived many years before)together with Solon, who was something older, and Clisthenes, who survivedthem both, were very able speakers for the age they lived in. But someyears after these, as may be collected from the Attic Annals, came theabove-mentioned Themistocles, who is said to have been as muchdistinguished by his eloquence as by his political abilities;--and afterhim the celebrated Pericles, who, though adorned with every kind ofexcellence, was most admired for his talent of speaking. Cleon also (theircotemporary) though a turbulent citizen, was allowed to be a tolerableorator. 

"These were immediately succeeded by Alcibiades, Critias, and Theramenes, whose manner of speaking may be easily inferred from the writings ofThucydides, who lived at the same time: their discourses were nervous andstately, full of sententious remarks, and so excessively concise as to besometimes obscure. But as soon as the force of a regular and a well-adjusted speech was understood, a sudden crowd of rhetoricians appeared, --such as Gorgias the Leontine, Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Protagorasthe Abderite, and Hippias the Elean, who were all held in great esteem, --with many others of the same age, who professed (it must be owned, rathertoo arrogantly) to teach their scholars, --_how the worse might be made, bythe force of eloquence, to appear the better cause_. But these were openlyopposed by the famous Socrates, who, by an adroit method of arguing whichwas peculiar to himself, took every opportunity to refute the principlesof their art. His instructive conferences produced a number of intelligentmen, and _Philosophy_ is said to have derived her birth from him;--not thedoctrine of _Physics_, which was of an earlier date, but that Philosophywhich treats of men, and manners, and of the nature of good and evil. Butas this is foreign to our present subject, we must defer the Philosophersto another opportunity, and return to the Orators, from whom I haveventured to make a sort digression. 

"When the professors therefore, abovementioned were in the decline oflife, Isocrates made his appearance, whos house stood open to all Greeceas the _School of Eloquence_. He was an accomplished orator, and anexcellent teacher; though he did not display his talents in the Forum, butcherished and improved that glory within the walls of his academy, which, in my opinion, no poet has ever yet acquired. He composed many valuablespecimens of his art, and taught the principles of it to others; and notonly excelled his predecessors in every part of it, but first discoveredthat a certain _metre_ should be observed in prose, though totallydifferent from the measured rhyme of the poets. Before _him_, theartificial structure and harmony of language was unknown;--or if there areany traces of it to be discovered, they appear to have been made withoutdesign; which, perhaps, will be thought a beauty:--but whatever it may bedeemed, it was, in the present case, the effect rather of native genius, or of accident, than of art and observation. For mere nature itself willmeasure and limit our sentences by a convenient compass of words; and whenthey are thus confined to a moderate flow of expression, they willfrequently have a _numerous_ cadence:--for the ear alone can decide whatis full and complete, and what is deficient; and the course of ourlanguage will necessarily be regulated by our breath, in which it isexcessively disagreeable, not only to fail, but even to labour. 

"After Isocrates came Lysias, who, though not personally engaged inforensic causes, was a very artful and an elegant composer, and such a oneas you might almost venture to pronounce a complete orator: forDemosthenes is the man who approaches the character so nearly, that youmay apply it to him without hesitation. No keen, no artful turns couldhave been contrived for the pleadings he has left behind him, which he didnot readily discover;--nothing could have been expressed with greaternicety, or more clearly and poignantly, than it has been already expressedby him;--and nothing greater, nothing more rapid and forcible, nothingadorned with a nobler elevation either of language, or sentiment, can beconceived than what is to be found in his orations. He was soon rivalledby his cotemporaries Hyperides, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Dinarchus, andDemades (none of whose writings are extant) with many others that might bementioned: for this age was adorned with a profusion of good orators; andthe genuine strength and vigour of Eloquence appears to me to havesubsisted to the end of this period, which was distinguished by a naturalbeauty of composition without disguise or affectation. 

"When these orators were in the decline of life, they were succeeded byPhalereus; who was then in the prime of youth. He was indeed a man ofgreater learning than any of them, but was fitter to appear on the parade, than in the field; and, accordingly, he rather pleased and entertained theAthenians, than inflamed their passions; and marched forth into the dustand heat of the Forum, not from a weather-beaten tent, but from the shadyrecesses of Theophrastus, a man of consummate erudition. He was the firstwho relaxed the force of Eloquence, and gave her a soft and tender air:and he rather chose to be agreeable, as indeed he was, than great andstriking; but agreeable in such a manner as rather charmed, than warmedthe mind of the hearer. His greatest ambition was to impress his audiencewith a high opinion of his elegance, and not, as Eupolis relates ofPericles, to _sting_ as well as to _please_. 

"You see, then, in the very city in which Eloquence was born and nurtured, how late it was before she grew to maturity; for before the time of Solonand Pisistratus, we meet with no one who is so much as mentioned for histalent of speaking. These, indeed, if we compute by the Roman date, may bereckoned very ancient; but if by that of the Athenians, we shall find themto be moderns. For though they flourished in the reign of Servius Tullius, Athens had then subsisted much longer than Rome has at present. I havenot, however, the least doubt that the power of Eloquence has been alwaysmore or less conspicuous. For Homer, we may suppose, would not haveascribed such superior talents of elocution to Ulysses, and Nestor (one ofwhom he celebrates for his force, and the other for his sweetness) unlessthe art of Speaking had then been held in some esteem; nor could the Poethimself have been master of such an ornamental style, and so excellent avein of Oratory as we actually find in him. --The time indeed in which helived is undetermined: but we are certain that he flourished many yearsbefore Romulus: for he was at least of as early a date as the elderLycurgus, the legislator of the Spartans. 

"But a particular attention to the art, and a greater ability in thepractice of it, may be observed in Pisistratus. He was succeeded in thefollowing century by Themistocles, who, according to the Roman date, was aperson of the remotest antiquity; but, according to that of the Athenians, he was almost a modern. For he lived when Greece was in the height of herpower, but when the city of Rome had but lately freed herself from theshackles of regal tyranny;--for the dangerous war with the Volsci, whowere headed by Coriolanus (then a voluntary exile) happened nearly at thesame time as the Persian war; and we may add, that the fate of bothcommanders was remarkably similar. Each of them, after distinguishinghimself as an excellent citizen, being driven from his country by thewrongs of an ungrateful people, went over to the enemy: and each of themrepressed the efforts of his resentment by a voluntary death. For thoughyou, my Atticus, have represented the exit of Coriolanus in a differentmanner, you must give me leave to dispatch him in the way I havementioned. "--"You may use your pleasure, " replied Atticus with a smile:"for it is the privilege of rhetoricians to exceed the truth of history, that they may have an opportunity of embellishing the fate of theirheroes: and accordingly, Clitarchus and Stratocles have entertained uswith the same pretty fiction about the death of Themistocles, which youhave invented for Coriolanus. Thucydides, indeed, who was himself anAthenian of the highest rank and merit, and lived nearly at the same time, has only informed us that he died, and was privately buried in Attica, adding, that it was suspected by some that he had poisoned himself. Butthese ingenious writers have assured us, that, having slain a bull at thealtar, he caught the blood in a large bowl, and, drinking it off, fellsuddenly dead upon the ground. For this species of death had a tragicalair, and might be described with all the pomp of rhetoric; whereas theordinary way of dying afforded no opportunity for ornament. As it will, therefore, suit your purpose, that Coriolanus should resemble Themistoclesin every thing, I give you leave to introduce the fatal bowl; and you maystill farther heighten the catastrophe by a solemn sacrifice, thatCoriolanus may appear in all respects to have been a second Themistocles. "

"I am much obliged to you, " said I, "for your courtesy: but, for thefuture, I shall be more cautious in meddling with History when you arepresent; whom I may justly commend as a most exact and scrupulous relatorof the Roman History; but nearly at the time we are speaking of (thoughsomewhat later) lived the above-mentioned Pericles, the illustrious son ofXantippus, who first improved his eloquence by the friendly aids ofliterature;--not that kind of literature which treats professedly of theart of Speaking, of which there was then no regular system; but after hehad studied under Anaxagoras the Naturalist, he easily transferred hiscapacity from abstruse and intricate speculations to forensic and populardebates. 

"All Athens was charmed with the sweetness of his language; and not onlyadmired him for his fluency, but was awed by the superior force and the_terrors_ of his eloquence. This age, therefore, which may be consideredas the infancy of the Art, furnished Athens with an Orator who almostreached the summit of his profession: for an emulation to shine in theForum is not usually found among a people who are either employed insettling the form of their government, or engaged in war, or strugglingwith difficulties, or subjected to the arbitrary power of Kings. Eloquenceis the attendant of peace, the companion of ease and prosperity, and thetender offspring of a free and a well established constitution. Aristotle, therefore, informs us, that when the Tyrants were expelled from Sicily, and private property (after a long interval of servitude) was determinedby public trials, the Sicilians Corax and Tisias (for this people, ingeneral, were very quick and acute, and had a natural turn forcontroversy) first attempted to write precepts on the art of Speaking. Before them, he says, there was no one who spoke by method, and rules ofart, though there were many who discoursed very sensibly, and generallyfrom written notes: but Protagoras took the pains to compose a number ofdissertations, on such leading and general topics as are now called commonplaces. Gorgias, he adds, did the same, and wrote panegyrics andinvectives on every subject: for he thought it was the province of anOrator to be able either to exaggerate, or extenuate, as occasion mightrequire. Antiphon the Rhamnusian composed several essays of the samespecies; and (according to Thucydides, a very respectable writer, who waspresent to hear him) pleaded a capital cause in his own defence, with asmuch eloquence as had ever yet been displayed by any man. But Lysias wasthe first who openly professed the _Art_; and, after him, Theodorus, beingbetter versed in the theory than the practice of it, begun to composeorations for others to pronounce; but reserved the method of doing it tohimself. In the same manner, Isocrates at first disclaimed the Art, butwrote speeches for other people to deliver; on which account, being oftenprosecuted for assisting, contrary to law, to circumvent one or another ofthe parties in judgment, he left off composing orations for other people, and wholly applied himself to writing rules and systems. 

"Thus then we have traced the birth and origin of the Orators of Greece, who were, indeed, very ancient, as I have before observed, if we computeby the Roman Annals; but of a much later date, if we reckon by their own:for the Athenian State had signalized itself by a variety of greatexploits, both at home and abroad, a considerable time before she wasravished with the charms of Eloquence. But this noble Art was not commonto Greece in general, but almost peculiar to Athens. For who has everheard of an Argive, a Corinthian, or a Theban Orator at the times we arespeaking of? unless, perhaps, some merit of the kind may be allowed toEpaminondas, who was a man of uncommon erudition. But I have never read ofa Lacedemonian Orator, from the earliest period of time to the present. For Menelaus himself, though said by Homer to have possessed a sweetelocution, is likewise described as a man of few words. Brevity, indeed, upon some occasions, is a real excellence; but it is very far from beingcompatible with the general character of Eloquence. 

"The Art of Speaking was likewise studied, and admired, beyond the limitsof Greece; and the extraordinary honours which were paid to Oratory haveperpetuated the names of many foreigners who had the happiness to excel init. For no sooner had Eloquence ventured to sail from the Pireaeus, butshe traversed all the isles, and visited every part of Asia; till at lastshe infected herself with their manners, and lost all the purity and thehealthy complexion of the Attic style, and indeed had almost forgot hernative language. The Asiatic Orators, therefore, though not to beundervalued for the rapidity and the copious variety of their elocution, were certainly too loose and luxuriant. But the Rhodians were of a sounderconstitution, and more resembled the Athenians. So much, then, for theGreeks; for, perhaps, what I have already said of them, is more than wasnecessary. "

"As to the necessity of it, " answered Brutus, "there is no occasion tospeak of it: but what you have said of them has entertained me soagreeably, that instead of being longer, it has been much shorter than Icould have wished. "--"A very handsome compliment, " said I;--"but it istime to begin with our own countrymen, of whom it is difficult to give anyfurther account than what we are able to conjecture from our Annals. --Forwho can question the address, and the capacity of Brutus, the illustriousfounder of your family? That Brutus, who so readily discovered the meaningof the Oracle, which promised the supremacy to him who should first salutehis mother? That Brutus, who concealed the most consummate abilities underthe appearance of a natural defect of understanding? Who dethroned andbanished a powerful monarch, the son of an illustrious sovereign? Whosettled the State, which he had rescued from arbitrary power, by theappointment of an annual magistracy, a regular system of laws, and a freeand open course of justice? And who abrogated the authority of hiscolleague, that he might rid the city of the smallest vestige of the_regal_ name?--Events, which could never have been produced withoutexerting the powers of Persuasion!--We are likewise informed that a fewyears after the expulsion of the Kings, when the Plebeians retired to thebanks of the Anio, about three miles from the city, and had possessedthemselves of what is called The _sacred_ Mount, M. Valerius the dictatorappeased their fury by a public harangue; for which he was afterwardsrewarded with the highest posts of honour, and was the first Roman who wasdistinguished by the surname of _Maximus_. Nor can L. Valerius Potitus besupposed to have been destitute of the powers of utterance, who, after theodium which had been excited against the Patricians by the tyrannicalgovernment of the _Decemviri_, reconciled the people to the Senate, by hisprudent laws and conciliatory speeches. We may likewise suppose, thatAppius Claudius was a man of some eloquence; since he dissuaded the Senatefrom consenting to a peace with King Pyrrhus, though they were muchinclined to it. The same might be said of Caius Fabricius, who wasdispatched to Pyrrhus to treat for the ransom of his captive fellow-citizens; and of Titus Coruncanius, who appears by the memoirs of thepontifical college, to have been a person of no contemptible genius: andlikewise of M. Curius (then a tribune of the people) who, when theInterrex Appius _the Blind_, an artful Speaker, held the _Comitia_contrary to law, by refusing to admit any consuls of plebeian rank, prevailed upon the Senate to protest against the conduct: of hisantagonist; which, if we consider that the Moenian law was not then inbeing, was a very bold attempt. We may also conjecture, that M. Popiliuswas a man of abilities, who, in the time of his consulship, when he wassolemnizing a public sacrifice in the proper habit of his office, (for hewas also a Flamen Carmentalis) hearing of the mutiny and insurrection ofthe people against the Senate, rushed immediately into the midst of theassembly, covered as he was with his sacerdotal robes, and quelled thesedition by his authority and the force of his elocution. I do not pretendto have read that the persons I have mentioned were then reckoned Orators, or that any fort of reward or encouragement was given to Eloquence: I onlyconjecture what appears very probable. It is also recorded, that C. Flaminius, who, when tribune of the people proposed the law for dividingthe conquered territories of the Gauls and Piceni among the citizens, andwho, after his promotion to the consulship, was slain near the lakeThrasimenus, became very popular by the mere force of his address, QuintusMaximus Verrucosus was likewise reckoned a good Speaker by hiscotemporaries; as was also Quintus Metellus, who, in the second Punic war, was joint consul with L. Veturius Philo. But the first person we have anycertain account of, who was publicly distinguished as an _Orator_, and whoreally appears to have been such, was M. Cornelius Cethegus; whoseeloquence is attested by Q. Ennius, a voucher of the highest credibility;since he actually heard him speak, and gave him this character after hisdeath; so that there is no reason to suspect that he was prompted by thewarmth of his friendship to exceed the bounds of truth. In his ninth bookof Annals, he has mentioned him in the following terms:

 "_Additur Orator Corneliu' suaviloquenti Ore Cethegus Marcu', Tuditano collega, Marci Filius. _"

"_Add the_ Orator _M. Cornelius Cethegus, so much admired for hismellifluent tongue; who was the colleague of Tuditanus, and the son ofMarcus_. "

"He expressly calls him an _Orator_, you see, and attributes to him aremarkable sweetness of elocution; which, even now a-days, is anexcellence of which few are possessed: for some of our modern Orators areso insufferably harsh, that they may rather be said to bark than to speak. But what the Poet so much admires in his friend, may certainly beconsidered as one of the principal ornaments of Eloquence. He adds;

" ----_is dictus, ollis popularibus olim, Qui tum vivebant homines, atque aevum agitabant, Flos delibatus populi_. "

"_He was called by his cotemporaries, the choicest Flower of the State_. "

"A very elegant compliment! for as the glory of a man is the strength ofhis mental capacity, so the brightest ornament of that is Eloquence; inwhich, whoever had the happiness to excel, was beautifully styled, by theAncients, the _Flower_ of the State; and, as the Poet immediatelysubjoins, "'--_Suadaeque medulla:'

"the very marrow and quintessence of Persuasion_. "

"That which the Greeks call [Greek: Peitho], _(i. E. Persuasion)_ and whichit is the chief business of an Orator to effect, is here called _Suada_ byEnnius; and of this he commends Cethegus as the _quintessence_; so that hemakes the Roman Orator to be himself the very substance of that amiableGoddess, who is said by Eupolis to have dwelt on the lips of Pericles. This Cethegus was joint-consul with P. Tuditanus in the second Punic war;at which time also M. Cato was Quaestor, about one hundred and forty yearsbefore I myself was promoted to the consulship; which circumstance wouldhave been absolutely lost, if it had not been recorded by Ennius; and thememory of that illustrious citizen, as has probably been the case of manyothers, would have been obliterated by the rust of antiquity. The mannerof speaking which was then in vogue, may easily be collected from thewritings of _Naevius_: for Naevius died, as we learn from the memoirs ofthe times, when the persons above-mentioned were consuls; though Varro, amost accurate investigator of historical truth, thinks there is a mistakein this, and fixes the death of Naevius something later. For Plautus diedin the consulship of P. Claudius and L. Porcius, twenty years after theconsulship of the persons we have been speaking of, and when Cato wasCensor. Cato, therefore, must have been younger than Cethegus, for he wasconsul nine years after him: but we always consider him as a person of theremotest antiquity, though he died in the consulship of Lucius Marcius andM. Manilius, and but eighty-three years before my own promotion to thesame office. He is certainly, however, the most ancient Orator we have, whose writings may claim our attention; unless any one is pleased with theabove-mentioned speech of Appius, on the peace with Pyrrhus, or with a setof panegyrics on the dead, which, I own, are still extant. For it wascustomary in most families of note to preserve their images, theirtrophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when anyof the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, orprove their own nobility. But the truth of History has been much corruptedby these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in themwhich never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession ofconsulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rankwere confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if I myselfshould pretend that I am descended from M. Tullius, who was a Patrician, and shared the consulship with Servius Sulpicius, about ten years afterthe expulsion of the kings. 

"But the real speeches of Cato are almost as numerous as those of Lysiasthe Athenian; a great number of whose are still extant. For Lysias wascertainly an Athenian; because he not only died but received his birth atAthens, and served all the offices of the city; though Timaesus, as if heacted by the Licinian or the Mucian law, remands him back to Syracuse. There is, however, a manifest resemblance between _his_ character and thatof _Cato_: for they are both of them distinguished by their acuteness, their elegance, their agreeable humour, and their brevity. But the Greekhas the happiness to be most admired: for there are some who are soextravagantly fond of him, as to prefer a graceful air to a vigorousconstitution, and who are perfectly satisfied with a slender and an easyshape, if it is only attended with a moderate share of health. It must, however, be acknowledged, that even Lysias often displays a strength ofarm, than which nothing can be more strenuous and forcible; though he iscertainly, in all respects, of a more thin and feeble habit than Cato, notwithstanding he has so many admirers, who are charmed with his veryslenderness. But as to Cato, where will you find a modern Orator whocondescends to read him?--nay, I might have said, who has the leastknowledge of him?--And yet, good Gods! what a wonderful man! I say nothingof his merit as a Citizen, a Senator, and a General; we must confine ourattention to the Orator. Who, then, has displayed more dignity as apanegyrist?--more severity as an accuser?--more ingenuity in the turn ofhis sentiments?--or more neatness and address in his narratives andexplanations? Though he composed above a hundred and fifty orations, (which I have seen and read) they are crowded with all the beauties oflanguage and sentiment. Let us select from these what deserves our noticeand applause: they will supply us with all the graces of Oratory. Not toomit his _Antiquities_, who will deny that these also are adorned withevery flower, and with all the lustre of Eloquence? and yet he hasscarcely any admirers; which some ages ago was the case of Philistus theSyracusan, and even of Thucydides himself. For as the lofty and elevatedstyle of Theopompus soon diminished the reputation of their pithy andlaconic harangues, which were sometimes scarcely intelligible throughtheir excessive brevity and quaintness; and as Demosthenes eclipsed theglory of Lysias, so the pompous and stately elocution of the moderns hasobscured the lustre of Cato. But many of us are shamefully ignorant andinattentive; for we admire the Greeks for their antiquity, and what iscalled their Attic neatness, and yet have never noticed the same qualityin Cato. It was the distinguishing character, say they, of Lysias andHyperides. I own it, and I admire them for it: but why not allow a shareof it to Cato? They are fond, they tell us, of the _Attic_ style ofEloquence: and their choice is certainly judicious, provided they borrowthe blood and the healthy juices, as well as the bones and membranes. Whatthey recommend, however, is, to do it justice, an agreeable quality. Butwhy must Lysias and Hyperides be so fondly courted, while Cato is entirelyoverlooked? His language indeed has an antiquated air, and some of hisexpressions are rather too harsh and crabbed. But let us remember thatthis was the language of the time: only change and modernize it, which itwas not in his power to do;--add the improvements of number and cadence, give an easier turn to his sentences, and regulate the structure andconnection of his words, (which was as little practised even by the olderGreeks as by him) and you will discover no one who can claim thepreference to Cato. The Greeks themselves acknowledge that the chiefbeauty of composition results from the frequent use of those_translatitious_ forms of expression which they call _Tropes_, and ofthose various attitudes of language and sentiment which they call_Figures_: but it is almost incredible in what numbers, and with whatamazing variety, they are all employed by Cato. I know, indeed, that he isnot sufficiently polished, and that recourse must be had to a more perfectmodel for imitation: for he is an author of such antiquity, that he is theoldest now extant, whose writings can be read with patience; and theancients in general acquired a much greater reputation in every other art, than in that of Speaking. But who that has seen the statues of themoderns, will not perceive in a moment, that the figures of Canachus aretoo stiff and formal, to resemble life? Those of Calamis, though evidentlyharsh, are somewhat softer. Even the statues of Myron are not sufficientlyalive; and yet you would not hesitate to pronounce them beautiful. Butthose of Polycletes are much finer, and, in my mind, completely finished. The case is the same in Painting; for in the works of Zeuxis, Polygnotus, Timanthes, and several other masters who confined themselves to the use offour colours, we commend the air and the symmetry of their figures; but inAetion, Nicomachus, Protogenes, and Apelles, every thing is finished toperfection. This, I believe, will hold equally true in all the other arts;for there is not one of them which was invented and completed at the sametime. I cannot doubt, for instance, that there were many Poets beforeHomer: we may infer it from those very songs which he himself informs uswere sung at the feasts of the Phaeacians, and of the profligate suitorsof Penelope. Nay, to go no farther, what is become of the ancient poems ofour own countrymen?"

 "Such as the Fauns and rustic Bards compos'd, When none the rocks of poetry had cross'd, Nor wish'd to form his style by rules of art, Before this vent'rous man: &c. 

"Old Ennius here speaks of himself; nor does he carry his boast beyond thebounds of truth: the case being really as he describes it. For we had onlyan Odyssey in Latin, which resembled one of the rough and unfinishedstatues of Daedalus; and some dramatic pieces of Livius, which willscarcely bear a second reading. This Livius exhibited his firstperformance at Rome in the Consulship of M. Tuditanus, and C. Clodius theson of Caecus, the year before Ennius was born, and, according to theaccount of my friend Atticus, (whom I choose to follow) the five hundredand fourteenth from the building of the city. But historians are notagreed about the date of the year. Attius informs us that Livius was takenprisoner at Tarentum by Quintus Maximus in his fifth Consulship, aboutthirty years after he is said by Atticus, and our ancient annals, to haveintroduced the drama. He adds that he exhibited his first dramatic pieceabout eleven years after, in the Consulship of C. Cornelius and Q. Minucius, at the public games which Salinator had vowed to the Goddess ofYouth for his victory over the Senones. But in this, Attius was so farmistaken, that Ennius, when the persons above-mentioned were Consuls, wasforty years old: so that if Livius was of the same age, as in this case hewould have been, the first dramatic author we had must have been youngerthan Plautus and Naevius, who had exhibited a great number of plays beforethe time he specifies. If these remarks, my Brutus, appear unsuitable tothe subject before us, you must throw the whole blame upon Atticus, whohas inspired me with a strange curiosity to enquire into the age ofillustrious men, and the respective times of their appearance. "--"On thecontrary, " said Brutus, "I am highly pleased that you have carried yourattention so far; and I think your remarks well adapted to the curioustask you have undertaken, the giving us a history of the different classesof Orators in their proper order. "--"You understand me right, " said I;"and I heartily wish those venerable Odes were still extant, which Catoinforms us in his Antiquities, used to be sung by every guest in his turnat the homely feasts of our ancestors, many ages before, to commemoratethe feats of their heroes. But the _Punic war_ of that antiquated Poet, whom Ennius so proudly ranks among the _Fauns and rustic Bards_, affordsme as exquisite a pleasure as the finest statue that was ever formed byMyron. Ennius, I allow, was a more finished writer: but if he had reallyundervalued the other, as he pretends to do, he would scarcely haveomitted such a bloody war as the first _Punic_, when he attemptedprofessedly to describe all the wars of the Republic. Nay he himselfassigns the reason. 

 "Others" (said he) "that cruel war have sung:"

Very true, and they have sung it with great order and precision, thoughnot, indeed, in such elegant strains as yourself. This you ought to haveacknowledged, as you must certainly be conscious that you have borrowedmany ornaments from Naevius; or if you refuse to own it, I shall tell youplainly that you have _pilfered_ them. 

"Cotemporary with the Cato above-mentioned (though somewhat older) were C. Flaminius, C. Varro, Q. Maximus, Q. Metellus, P. Lentulus, and P. Crassuswho was joint Consul with the elder Africanus. This Scipio, we are told, was not destitute of the powers of Elocution: but his son, who adopted theyounger Scipio (the son of Paulus Aemilius) would have stood foremost inthe list of Orators, if he had possessed a firmer constitution. This isevident from a few Speeches, and a Greek History of his, which are veryagreeably written. In the same class we may place Sextus Aelius, who wasthe best lawyer of his time, and a ready speaker. A little after these, was C. Sulpicius Gallus, who was better acquainted with the Grecianliterature than all the rest of the nobility, and was reckoned a gracefulOrator, being equally distinguished, in every other respect, by thesuperior elegance of his taste; for a more copious and splendid way ofspeaking began now to prevail. When this Sulpicius, in quality of Praetor, was celebrating the public shews in honour of Apollo, died the PoetEnnius, in the Consulship of Q. Marcius and Cn. Servilius, afterexhibiting his Tragedy of _Thyestes_. At the same time lived TiberiusGracchus, the son of Publius, who was twice Consul and Censor: a GreekOration of his to the Rhodians is still extant, and he bore the characterof a worthy citizen, and an eloquent Speaker. We are likewise told that P. Scipio Nasica, surnamed The Darling of the People, and who also had thehonor to be twice chosen Consul and Censor, was esteemed an able Orator:To him we may add L. Lentulus, who was joint Consul with C. Figulus;--Q. Nobilior, the son of Marcus, who was inclined to the study of literatureby his father's example, and presented Ennius (who had served under hisfather in Aetolia) with the freedom of the City, when he founded a colonyin quality of Triumvir: and his colleague, T. Annius Luscus, who is saidto have been tolerably eloquent. We are likewise informed that L. Paulus, the father of Africanus, defended the character of an eminent citizen in apublic speech; and that Cato, who died in the 83d year of his age, wasthen living, and actually pleaded, that very year, against the defendantServius Galba, in the open Forum, with great energy and spirit:--he hasleft a copy of this Oration behind him. But when Cato was in the declineof life, a crowd of Orators, all younger than himself, made theirappearance at the same time: For A. Albinus, who wrote a History in Greek, and shared the Consulship with L. Lucullus, was greatly admired for hislearning and Elocution: and almost equal to him were Servius Fulvius, andServius Fabius Pictor, the latter of whom was well acquainted with thelaws of his country, the Belles Lettres, and the History of Antiquity. Quintus Fabius Labeo was likewise adorned with the same accomplishments. But Q. Metellus whose four sons attained the consular dignity, was admiredfor his Eloquence beyond the rest;--he undertook the defence of L. Cotta, when he was accused by Africanus, --and composed many other Speeches, particularly that against Tiberius Gracchus, which we have a full accountof in the Annals of C. Fannius. L. Cotta himself was likewise reckoned a_veteran_; but C. Laelius, and P. Africanus were allowed by all to be morefinished Speakers: their Orations are still extant, and may serve asspecimens of their respective abilities. But Servius Galba, who wassomething older than any of them, was indisputably the best speaker of theage. He was the first among the Romans who displayed the proper anddistinguishing talents of an Orator, such as, digressing from his subjectto embellish and diversify it, --soothing or alarming the passions, exhibiting every circumstance in the strongest light, --imploring thecompassion of his audience, and artfully enlarging on those topics, orgeneral principles of Prudence or Morality, on which the stress of hisargument depended: and yet, I know not how, though he is allowed to havebeen the greatest Orator of his time, the Orations he has left are morelifeless, and have a more antiquated air, than those of Laelius, orScipio, or even of Cato himself: in short, the strength and substance ofthem has so far evaporated, that we have scarcely any thing of themremaining but the bare skeletons. In the same manner, though both Laeliusand Scipio are greatly extolled for their abilities; the preference wasgiven to Laelius as a speaker; and yet his Oration, in defence of theprivileges of the Sacerdotal College, has no greater merit than any oneyou may please to fix upon of the numerous speeches of Scipio. Nothing, indeed, can be sweeter and milder than that of Laelius, nor could anything have been urged with greater dignity to support the honour ofreligion: but, of the two, Laelius appears to me to be rougher, and moreold-fashioned than Scipio; and, as different Speakers have differenttastes, he had in my mind too strong a relish for antiquity, and was toofond of using obsolete expressions. But such is the jealousy of mankind, that they will not allow the same person to be possessed of too manyperfections. For as in military prowess they thought it impossible thatany man could vie with Scipio, though Laelius had not a littledistinguished himself in the war with Viriathus; so for learning, Eloquence, and wisdom, though each was allowed to be above the reach ofany other competitor, they adjudged the preference to Laelius. Nor wasthis only the opinion of the world, but it seems to have been allowed bymutual consent between themselves: for it was then a general custom, ascandid in this respect as it was fair and just in every other, to give hisdue to each. I accordingly remember that P. Rutilius Rufus once told me atSmyrna, that when he was a young man, the two Consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus, by order of the Senate, tried a capital cause of greatconsequence. For several persons of note having been murdered in the SilanForest, and the domestics, and some of the sons, of a company of gentlemenwho farmed the taxes of the pitch-manufactory, being charged with thefact, the Consuls were ordered to try the cause in person. Laelius, hesaid, spoke very sensibly and elegantly, as indeed he always did, on theside of the farmers of the customs. But the Consuls, after hearing bothsides, judging it necessary to refer the matter to a second trial, thesame Laelius, a few days after, pleaded their cause again with moreaccuracy, and much better than at first. The affair, however, was oncemore put off for a further hearing. Upon this, when his clients attendedLaelius to his own house, and, after thanking him for what he had alreadydone, earnestly begged him not to be disheartened by the fatigue he hadsuffered;--he assured them he had exerted his utmost to defend theirreputation; but frankly added, that he thought their cause would be moreeffectually supported by Servius Galba, whose manner of speaking was moreembellished and more spirited than his own. They, accordingly, by theadvice of Laelius, requested Galba to undertake it. To this he consented;but with the greatest modesty and reluctance, out of respect to theillustrious advocate he was going to succeed:--and as he had only the nextday to prepare himself, he spent the whole of it in considering anddigesting his cause. When the day of trial was come, Rutilius himself, atthe request of the defendants, went early in the morning to Galba, to givehim notice of it, and conduct him to the court in proper time. But tillword was brought that the Consuls were going to the bench, he confinedhimself in his study, where he suffered no one to be admitted; andcontinued very busy in dictating to his Amanuenses, several of whom (asindeed he often used to do) he kept fully employed at once. While he wasthus engaged, being informed that it was high time for him to appear incourt, he left his house with so much life in his eyes, and such an ardentglow upon his countenance, that you would have thought he had not only_prepared_ his cause, but actually _carried_ it. Rutilius added, asanother circumstance worth noticing, that his scribes, who attended him tothe bar, appeared excessively fatigued: from whence he thought it probablethat he was equally warm and vigorous in the composition, as in thedelivery of his speeches. But to conclude the story, Galba pleaded hiscause before Laelius himself, and a very numerous and attentive audience, with such uncommon force and dignity, that every part of his Orationreceived the applause of his hearers: and so powerfully did he move thefeelings, and affect the pity of the judges, that his clients wereimmediately acquitted of the charge, to the satisfaction of the wholecourt. 

"As, therefore, the two principal qualities required in an Orator, are tobe neat and clear in stating the nature of his subject, and warm andforcible in moving the passions; and as he who fires and inflames hisaudience, will always effect more than he who can barely inform and amusethem; we may conjecture from the above narrative, which I was favouredwith by Rutilius, that Laelius was most admired for his elegance, andGalba for his pathetic force. But this force of his was most remarkablyexerted, when, having in his Praetorship put to death some Lusitanians, contrary (it was believed) to his previous and express engagement;--T. Libo the Tribune exasperated the people against him, and preferred a billwhich was to operate against his conduct as a subsequent law. M. Cato (asI have before mentioned) though extremely old, spoke in support of thebill with great vehemence; which Speech he inserted in his Book of_Antiquities_, a few days, or at most only a month or two, before hisdeath. On this occasion, Galba refusing to plead to the charge, andsubmitting his fate to the generosity of the people, recommended hischildren to their protection, with tears in his eyes; and particularly hisyoung ward the son of C. Gallus Sulpicius his deceased friend, whoseorphan state and piercing cries, which were the more regarded for the sakeof his illustrious father, excited their pity in a wonderful manner;--andthus (as Cato informs us in his History) he escaped the flames which wouldotherwise have consumed him, by employing the children to move thecompassion of the people. I likewise find (what may be easily judged fromhis Orations still extant) that his prosecutor Libo was a man of someEloquence. "

As I concluded these remarks with a short pause;--"What can be thereason, " said Brutus, "if there was so much merit in the Oratory of Galba, that there is no trace of it to be seen in his Orations;--a circumstancewhich I have no opportunity to be surprized at in others, who have leftnothing behind them in writing. "--"The reasons, " said I, "why some havenot wrote any thing, and others not so well as they spoke, are verydifferent. Some of our Orators have writ nothing through mere indolence, and because they were loath to add a private fatigue to a public one: formost of the Orations we are now possessed of were written not before theywere spoken, but some time afterwards. Others did not choose the troubleof improving themselves; to which nothing more contributes than frequentwriting; and as to perpetuating the fame of their Eloquence, they thoughtit unnecessary; supposing that their eminence in that respect wassufficiently established already, and that it would be rather diminishedthan increased by submitting any written specimen of it to the arbitrarytest of criticism. Some also were sensible that they spoke much betterthan they were able to write; which is generally the case of those whohave a great genius, but little learning, such as Servius Galba. When hespoke, he was perhaps so much animated by the force of his abilities, andthe natural warmth and impetuosity of his temper, that his language wasrapid, bold, and striking; but afterwards, when he took up the pen in hisleisure hours, and his passion had sunk into a calm, his Elocution becamedull and languid. This indeed can never happen to those whose only aim isto be neat and polished; because an Orator may always be master of thatdiscretion which will enable him both to speak and write in the sameagreeable manner: but no man can revive at pleasure the ardour of hispassions; and when that has once subsided, the fire and pathos of hislanguage will be extinguished. This is the reason why the calm and easyspirit of Laelius seems still to breathe in his writings, whereas theforce of Galba is entirely withered and lost. 

"We may also reckon in the number of middling Orators, the two brothers L. And Sp. Mummius, both whose Orations are still in being:--the style ofLucius is plain and antiquated; but that of Spurius, though equallyunembellished, is more close, and compact; for he was well versed in thedoctrine of the Stoics. The Orations of Sp. Alpinus, their cotemporary, are very numerous: and we have several by L. And C. Aurelius Oresta, whowere esteemed indifferent Speakers. P. Popilius also was a worthy citizen, and had a tolerable share of utterance: but his son Caius was reallyeloquent. To _these_ we may add C. Tuditanus, who was not only verypolished, and genteel, in his manners and appearance, but had an elegantturn of expression; and of the same class was M. Octavius, a man ofinflexible constancy in every just and laudable measure; and who, afterbeing affronted and disgraced in the most public manner, defeated hisrival Tiberius Gracchus by the mere dint of his perseverance. But M. Aemilius Lepidus, who was surnamed Porcina, and flourished at the sametime as Galba, though he was indeed something younger, was esteemed anOrator of the first eminence; and really appears, from his Orations whichare still extant, to have been a masterly writer. For he was the firstSpeaker, among the Romans, who gave us a specimen of the easy gracefulnessof the Greeks; and who was distinguished by the measured flow of hislanguage, and a style regularly polished and improved by art. His mannerwas carefully studied by C. Carbo and Tib. Gracchus, two accomplishedyouths who were nearly of an age: but we must defer their character aspublic Speakers, till we have finished our account of their elders. For Q. Pompeius, according to the style of the time, was no contemptible Orator;and actually raised himself to the highest honours of the State by his ownpersonal merit, and without being recommended, as usual, by the quality ofhis ancestors. Lucius Cassius too derived his influence, which was veryconsiderable, not indeed from his _Eloquence_, but from his manly way ofspeaking: for it is remarkable that he made himself popular, not, asothers did, by his complaisance and liberality, but by the gloomy rigourand severity of his manners. His law for collecting the votes of thepeople by way of ballot, was strongly opposed by the Tribune M. AntiusBriso, who was supported by M. Lepidus one of the Consuls: and it wasafterwards objected to Africanus, that Briso dropped the opposition by hisadvice. At this time the two Scipios were very serviceable to a number ofclients by their superior judgment, and Eloquence; but still more so bytheir extensive interest and popularity. But the written speeches ofPompeius (though it must be owned they have rather an antiquated air)discover an amazing sagacity, and are very far from being dry andspiritless. To these we must add P. Crassus, an orator of uncommon merit, who was qualified for the profession by the united efforts of art andnature, and enjoyed some other advantages which were almost peculiar tohis family. For he had contracted an affinity with that accomplishedSpeaker Servius Galba above-mentioned, by giving his daughter in marriageto Galba's son; and being likewise himself the son of Mucius, and thebrother of P. Scaevola, he had a fine opportunity at home (which he madethe best use of) to gain a thorough knowledge of the Civil Law. He was aman of unusual application, and was much beloved by his fellow-citizens;being constantly employed either in giving his advice, or pleading causesin the Forum. Cotemporary with the Speakers I have mentioned were the twoC. Fannii, the sons of C. And M. One of whom, (the son of C. ) who wasjoint Consul with Domitius, has left us an excellent speech againstGracchus, who proposed the admission of the Latin and Italian allies tothe freedom of Rome. "--"Do you really think, then, " said Atticus, "thatFannius was the author of that Oration? For when we were young, there weredifferent opinions about it. Some asserted it was wrote by C. Persius, aman of letters, and the same who is so much extolled for his learning byLucilius: and others believed it was the joint production of a number ofnoblemen, each of whom contributed his best to complete it. "--"This Iremember, " said I; "but I could never persuade myself to coincide witheither of them. Their suspicion, I believe, was entirely founded on thecharacter of Fannius, who was only reckoned among the _middling_ Orators;whereas the speech in question is esteemed the best which the timeafforded. But, on the other hand, it is too much of a piece to have beenthe mingled composition of many: for the flow of the periods, and the turnof the language, are perfectly similar, throughout the whole of it. --andas to _Persius_, if _he_ had composed it for Fannius to pronounce, Gracchus would certainly have taken some notice of it in his reply;because Fannius rallies Gracchus pretty severely, in one part of it, foremploying Menelaus of Marathon, and several others, to manufacture hisspeeches. We may add that Fannius himself was no contemptible Orator: forhe pleaded a number of causes, and his Tribuneship, which was chieflyconducted under the management and direction of P. Africanus, was very farfrom being an idle one. But the other C. Fannius, (the son of M. ) and son-in-law of C. Laelius, was of a rougher cast, both in his temper, andmanner of speaking. By the advice of his father-in-law, (of whom, by thebye, he was not remarkably fond, because he had not voted for hisadmission into the college of augurs, but gave the preference to hisyounger son-in-law Q. Scaevola; though Laelius genteely excused himself, by saying that the preference was not given to the youngest son, but tohis wife the eldest daughter, ) by his advice, I say, he attended thelectures of Panaetius. His abilities as a Speaker may be easilyconjectured from his History, which is neither destitute of elegance, nora perfect model of composition. As to his brother Mucius the augur, whenever he was called upon to defend himself, he always pleaded his owncause; as, for instance, in the action which was brought against him forbribery by T. Albucius. But he was never ranked among the Orators; hischief merit being a critical knowledge of the Civil Law, and an uncommonaccuracy of judgment. L. Caelius Antipater likewise (as you may see by hisworks) was an elegant and a handsome writer for the time he lived in; hewas also an excellent Lawyer, and taught the principles of jurisprudenceto many others, particularly to L. Crassus. As to Caius Carbo and T. Gracchus, I wish they had been as well inclined to maintain peace and goodorder in the State, as they were qualified to support it by theirEloquence: their glory would then have been out-rivaled by no one. But thelatter, for his turbulent Tribuneship, which he entered upon with a heartfull of resentment against the great and good, on account of the odium hehad brought upon himself by the treaty of Numantia, was slain by the handsof the Republic: and the other, being impeached of a seditious affectationof popularity, rescued himself from the severity of the judges by avoluntary death. That both of them were excellent Speakers, is very plainfrom the general testimony of their cotemporaries: for as to theirSpeeches now extant, though I allow them to be very artful and judicious, they are certainly defective in Elocution. Gracchus had the advantage ofbeing carefully instructed by his mother Cornelia from his very childhood, and his mind was enriched with all the stores of Grecian literature: forhe was constantly attended by the ablest masters from Greece, andparticularly, in his youth, by Diophanes of Mitylene, who was the mosteloquent Grecian of his age: but though he was a man of uncommon genius, he had but a short time to improve and display it. As to Carbo, his wholelife was spent in trials, and forensic debates. He is said by verysensible men who heard him, and, among others, by our friend L. Gelliuswho lived in his family in the time of his Consulship, to have been asonorous, a fluent, and a spirited Speaker, and likewise, upon occasion, very pathetic, very engaging, and excessively humorous: Gellius used toadd, that he applied himself very closely to his studies, and bestowedmuch of his time in writing and private declamation. He was, therefore, esteemed the best pleader of his time; for no sooner had he began todistinguish himself in the Forum, but the depravity of the age gave birthto a number of law-suits; and it was first found necessary, in the time ofhis youth, to settle the form of public trials, which had never been donebefore. We accordingly find that L. Piso, then a Tribune of the people, was the first who proposed a law against bribery; which he did whenCensorinus and Manilius were Consuls. This Piso too was a professedpleader, and the proposer and opposer of a great number of laws: he leftsome Orations behind him, which are now lost, and a Book of Annals veryindifferently written. But in the public trials, in which Carbo wasconcerned, the assistance of an able advocate had become more necessarythan ever, in consequence of the law for voting by ballots, which wasproposed and carried by L. Cassius, in the Consulship of Lepidus andMancinus. 

"I have likewise been often assured by the poet Attius, (an intimatefriend of his) that your ancestor D. Brutus, the son of M. Was noinelegant Speaker; and that for the time he lived in, he was well versedboth in the Greek and Roman literature. He ascribed the sameaccomplishments to Q. Maximus, the grandson of L. Paulus: and added that, a little prior to Maximus, the Scipio, by whose instigation (though onlyin a private capacity) T. Gracchus was assassinated, was not only a man ofgreat ardour in all other respects, but very warm and spirited in hismanner of speaking. P. Lentulus too, the Father of the Senate, had asufficient share of eloquence for an honest and useful magistrate. Aboutthe same time L. Furius Philus was thought to speak our language aselegantly, and more correctly than any other man; P. Scaevola to be veryartful and judicious, and rather more fluent than Philus; M. Manilius topossess almost an equal share of judgment with the latter; and AppiusClaudius to be equally fluent, but more warm and pathetic. M. FulviusFlaccus, and C. Cato the nephew of Africanus, were likewise tolerableOrators: some of the writings of Flaccus are still in being, in whichnothing, however, is to be seen but the mere scholar. P. Decius was aprofessed rival of Flaccus; he too was not destitute of Eloquence; but hisstyle, as well as his temper, was too violent. M. Drusus the son of C. Who, in his Tribuneship, baffled [Footnote: _Laffiea_. In the original itruns, "_Caium Gracchum collegam, iterum Tribinum fecit_. " but this wasundoubtedly a mistake of the transcriber, as being contrary not only tothe truth of History, but to Cicero's own account of the matter in lib. IV. _Di Finibus_. Pighius therefore has very properly recommended the word_fregit_ instead of _fecit_. ] his colleague Gracchus (then raised to thesame office a second time) was a nervous Speaker, and a man of greatpopularity: and next to him was his brother C. Drusus. Your kinsman also, my Brutus, (M. Pennus) successfully opposed the Tribune Gracchus, who wassomething younger than himself. For Gracchus was Quaestor, and Pennus (theson of that M. Who was joint Consul with Q. Aelius) was Tribune, in theConsulship of M. Lepidus and L. Orestes: but after enjoying theAedileship, and a prospect: of succeeding to the highest honours, he wassnatched off by an untimely death. As to T. Flaminius, whom I myself haveseen, I can learn nothing but that he spoke our language with greataccuracy. To these we may join C. Curio, M. Scaurus, P. Rutilius, and C. Gracchus. It will not be amiss to give a short account of Scaurus andRutilius; neither of whom, indeed, had the reputation of being a first-rate Orator, though each of them pleaded a number of causes. But somedeserving men, who were not remarkable for their genius, may be justlycommended for their industry; not that the persons I am speaking of werereally destitute of genius, but only of that particular kind of it whichdistinguishes the Orator. For it is of little consequence to discover whatis proper to be said, unless you are able to express it in a free andagreeable manner: and even that will be insufficient, if not recommendedby the voice, the look, and the gesture. It is needless to add that muchdepends upon _Art_: for though, even without this, it is possible, by themere force of nature, to say many striking things; yet, as they will afterall be nothing more than so many lucky hits, we shall not be able torepeat them at our pleasure. The style of Scaurus, who was a very sensibleand honest man, was remarkably serious, and commanded the respect of thehearer: so that when he was speaking for his client, you would rather havethought he was giving evidence in his favour, than pleading his cause. This manner of speaking, however, though but indifferently adapted to thebar, was very much so to a calm, debate in the Senate, of which Scauruswas then esteemed the Father: for it not only bespoke his prudence, butwhat was still a more important recommendation, his credibility. Thisadvantage, which it is not easy to acquire by art, he derived entirelyfrom nature: though you know that even _here_ we have some precepts toassist us. We have several of his Orations still extant, and three booksinscribed to L. Fufidius containing the History of his own Life, which, though a very useful work, is scarcely read by any body. But the_Institution of Cyrus_, by Xenophon, is read by every one; which, thoughan excellent performance of the kind, is much less adapted to our mannersand form of government, and not superior in merit to the honest simplicityof Scaurus. Fufidius himself was likewise a tolerable pleader. ButRutilius was distinguished by his solemn and austere way of speaking; andboth of them were naturally warm, and spirited. Accordingly, after theyhad rivalled each other for the Consulship, he who had lost his election, immediately sued his competitor for bribery; and Scaurus, the defendant, being honourably acquitted of the charge, returned the compliment toRutilius, by commencing a similar prosecution against _him_. Rutilius wasa man of great industry and application; for which he was the morerespected, because, besides his pleadings, he undertook the office (whichwas a very troublesome one) of giving advice to all who applied to him, inmatters of law. His Orations are very dry, but his juridical remarks areexcellent: for he was a learned man, and well versed in the Greekliterature, and was likewise an attentive and constant hearer ofPanaetius, and a thorough proficient in the doctrine of the Stoics; whosemethod of discoursing, though very close and artful, is too precise, andnot at all adapted to engage the attention of common people. That self-confidence, therefore, which is so peculiar to the sect, was displayed by_him_ with amazing firmness and resolution; for though he was perfectlyinnocent of the charge, a prosecution was commenced against him forbribery (a trial which raised a violent commotion in the city)--and yetthough L. Crassus and M. Antonius, both of Consular dignity, were, at thattime, in very high repute for their Eloquence, he refused the assistanceof either; being determined to plead his cause himself, which heaccordingly did. C. Cotta, indeed, who was his nephew, made a short speechin his vindication, which he spoke in the true style of an Orator, thoughhe was then but a youth. Q. Mucius too said much in his defence, with hisusual accuracy and elegance; but not with that force, and extension, whichthe mode of trial, and the importance of the cause demanded. Rutilius, therefore, was an Orator of the _Stoical_, and Scaurus of the _Antique_cast: but they are both entitled to our commendation; because, in _them_, even this formal and unpromising species of Elocution has appeared amongus with some degree of merit. For as in the Theatre, so in the Forum, Iwould not have our applause confined to those alone who act the busy, andmore important characters; but reserve a share of it for the quiet andunambitious performer who is distinguished by a simple truth of gesture, without any violence. As I have mentioned the Stoics, I must take somenotice of Q. Aelius Tubero, the grandson of L. Paullus, who made hisappearance at the time we are speaking of. He was never esteemed anOrator, but was a man of the most rigid virtue, and strictly conformableto the doctrine he professed: but, in truth, he was rather too crabbed. Inhis Triumvirate, he declared, contrary to the opinion of P. Africanus hisuncle, that the Augurs had no right of exemption from sitting in thecourts of justice: and as in his temper, so in his manner of speaking, hewas harsh, unpolished, and austere; on which account, he could never raisehimself to the honourable ports which were enjoyed by his ancestors. Buthe was a brave and steady citizen, and a warm opposer of Gracchus, asappears from an Oration of Gracchus against him: we have likewise some ofTubero's speeches against Gracchus. He was not indeed a shining Orator:but he was a learned, and a very skilfull disputant. 

"I find, " said Brutus, "that the case is much the same among us, as withthe Greeks; and that the Stoics, in general, are very judicious at anargument, which they conduct by certain rules of art, and are likewisevery neat and exact in their language; but if we take them from this, tospeak in Public, they make a poor appearance. Cato, however, must beexcepted; in whom, though as rigid a Stoic as ever existed, I could notwish for a more consummate degree of Eloquence: I can likewise discover amoderate share of it in Fannius, --not so much in Rutilius;--but none atall in Tubero. "--"True, " said I; "and we may easily account for it: Theirwhole attention was so closely confined to the study of Logic, that theynever troubled themselves to acquire the free, diffusive, and variegatedstyle which is so necessary for a public Speaker. But your uncle, youdoubtless know, was wise enough to borrow only that from the Stoics, whichthey were able to furnish for his purpose (the art of reasoning:) but forthe art of Speaking, he had recourse to the masters of Rhetoric, andexercised himself in the manner they directed. If, however, we must beindebted for everything to the Philosophers, the Peripatetic disciplineis, in my mind, much the properest to form our language. For which reason, my Brutus, I the more approve your choice, in attaching yourself to asect, (I mean the Philosophers of the Old Academy, ) in whose system, ajust and accurate way of reasoning is enlivened by a perpetual sweetnessand fluency of expression: but even the delicate and flowing style of thePeripatetics, and Academics, is not sufficient to complete an Orator; noryet can he be complete without it. For as the language of the Stoics istoo close, and contracted, to suit the ears of common people; so that ofthe latter is too diffusive and luxuriant for a spirited contest in theForum, or a pleading at the bar. Who had a richer style than Plato? ThePhilosophers tell us, that if Jupiter himself was to converse in Greek, hewould speak like _him_. Who also was more nervous than Aristotle? Whosweeter than Theophrastus? We are told that even Demosthenes attended thelectures of Plato, and was fond of reading what he published; which, indeed, is sufficiently evident from the turn, and the majesty of hislanguage and he himself has expressly mentioned it in one of his Letters. But the style of this excellent Orator is, notwithstanding, much toofierce for the Academy; as that of the Philosophers is too mild and placidfor the Forum. I shall now, with your leave, proceed to the age and meritsof the rest of the Roman Orators. "--"Nothing, " said Atticus, "(for I cansafely answer for my friend Brutus) would please us better. "--"Curio, then, " said I, "was nearly of the age I have just mentioned, --a celebratedSpeaker, whose genius may be easily decided from his Orations. For, amongseveral others, we have a noble Speech of his for Ser. Fulvius, in aprosecution for incest. When we were children, it was esteemed the bestthen extant; but now it is almost overlooked among the numerousperformances of the same kind which have been lately published. "--"I amvery sensible, " replied Brutus, "to whom we are obliged for the numerousperformances you speak of. "--"And I am equally sensible, " said I, "who isthe person you intend: for I have at least done a service to my youngcountrymen, by introducing a loftier, and more embellished way ofspeaking, than was used before: and, perhaps, I have also done some harm, because after _mine_ appeared, the Speeches of our ancestors andpredecessors began to be neglected by most people; though never by _me_, for I can assure you, I always prefer them to my own. "--"But you mustreckon me, " said Brutus, "among the _most people_; though I now see, fromyour recommendation, that I have a great many books to read, of whichbefore I had very little opinion. "--"But this celebrated Oration, " said I, "in the prosecution for incest, is in some places excessively puerile; andwhat is said in it of the passion of love, the inefficacy of questioningby tortures, and the danger of trusting to common hear-say, is indeedpretty enough, but would be insufferable to the tutored ears of themoderns, and to a people who are justly distinguished for the solidity oftheir knowledge. He likewise wrote several other pieces, spoke a number ofgood Orations, and was certainly an eminent pleader; so that I muchwonder, considering how long he lived, and the character he bore, that hewas never preferred to the Consulship. But I have a man here, [Footnote:He refers, perhaps, to the Works of Gracchus, which he might then have inhis hand; or, more probably, to a statue of him, which stood near theplace where he and his friends were sitting. ] (C. Gracchus) who had anamazing genius, and the warmest application; and was a Scholar from hisvery childhood: For you must not imagine, my Brutus, that we have ever yethad a Speaker, whose language was richer and more copious than his. "--"Ireally think so, " answered Brutus; "and he is almost the only author wehave, among the ancients, that I take the trouble to read. " "And he well_deserves_ it, " said I; "for the Roman name and literature were greatlosers by his untimely fate. I wish he had transferred his affection forhis brother to his country! How easily, if he had thus prolonged his life, would he have rivalled the glory of his father, and grandfather! InEloquence, I scarcely know whether we should yet have had his equal. Hislanguage was noble; his sentiments manly and judicious; and his wholemanner great and striking. He wanted nothing but the finishing touch: forthough his first attempts were as excellent as they were numerous, he didnot live to complete them. In short, my Brutus, _he_, if any one, shouldbe carefully studied by the Roman youth: for he is able, not only to edge, but to feed and ripen their talents. After _him_ appeared C. Galba, theson of the eloquent Servius, and the son-in-law of P. Crassus, who wasboth an eminent Speaker, and a skilful Civilian. He was much commended byour fathers, who respected him for the sake of _his_: but he had themisfortune to be stopped in his career. For being tried by the Mamilianlaw, as a party concerned in the conspiracy to support Jugurtha, though heexerted all his abilities to defend himself, he was unhappily cast. Hisperoration, or, as it is often called, his epilogue, is still extant; andwas so much in repute, when we were school-boys, that we used to learn itby heart: he was the first member of the Sacerdotal College, since thebuilding of Rome, who was publicly tried and condemned. As to P. Scipio, who died in his Consulship, he neither spoke much, nor often: but he wasinferior to no one in the purity of his language, and superior to all inwit and pleasantry. His colleague L. Bestia, who begun his Tribuneshipvery successfully, (for, by a law which he preferred for the purpose, heprocured the recall of Popillius, who had been exiled by the influence ofCaius Gracchus) was a man of spirit, and a tolerable Speaker: but he didnot finish his Consulship so happily. For, in consequence of the invidiouslaw of Mamilius above-mentioned, C. Galba one of the Priests, and the fourConsular gentlemen L. Bestia, C. Cato, Sp. Albinus, and that excellentcitizen L. Opimius, who killed Gracchus; of which he was acquitted by thepeople, though he had constantly sided against them, --were all condemnedby their judges, who were of the Gracchan party. Very unlike him in hisTribuneship, and indeed in every other part of his life, was that infamouscitizen C. Licinius Nerva; but he was not destitute of Eloquence. Nearlyat the same time, (though, indeed, he was somewhat older) flourished C. Fimbria, who was rather rough and abusive, and much too warm and hasty:but his application, and his great integrity and firmness made him aserviceable Speaker in the Senate. He was likewise a tolerable Pleader, and Civilian, and distinguished by the same rigid freedom in the turn ofhis language, as in that of his virtues. When we were boys, we used tothink his Orations worth reading; though they are now scarcely to be metwith. But C. Sextius Calvinus was equally elegant both in his taste, andhis language, though, unhappily, of a very infirm constitution:--when thepain in his feet intermitted, he did not decline the trouble of pleading, but he did not attempt it very often. His fellow-citizens, therefore, madeuse of his advice, whenever they had occasion for it; but of hispatronage, only when his health permitted. Cotemporary with these, my goodfriend, was your namesake M. Brutus, the disgrace of your noble family;who, though he bore that honourable name, and had the best of men, and aneminent Civilian, for his father, confined his practice to accusations, asLycurgus is said to have done at Athens. He never sued for any of ourmagistracies; but was a severe, and a troublesome prosecutor: so that weeasily see that, in _him_, the natural goodness of the flock was corruptedby the vicious inclinations of the man. At the same time lived L. Caesulenus, a man of Plebeian rank, and a professed accuser, like theformer: I myself heard him in his old age, when he endeavoured, by theAquilian law, to subject L. Sabellius to a fine, for a breach of justice. But I should not have taken any notice of such a low-born wretch, if I hadnot thought that no person I ever heard, could give a more suspicious turnto the cause of the defendant, or exaggerate it to a higher degree ofcriminality. T. Albucius, who lived in the same age, was well versed inthe Grecian literature, or, rather, was almost a Greek himself. I speak ofhim, as I think; but any person, who pleases, may judge what he was by hisOrations. In his youth, he studied at Athens, and returned from thence athorough proficient in the doctrine of Epicurus; which, of all others, isthe least adapted to form an orator. His cotemporary, Q. Catulus, was anaccomplished Speaker, not in the ancient taste, but (unless any thing moreperfect can be exhibited) in the finished style of the moderns. He had aplentiful stock of learning; an easy, winning elegance, not only in hismanners and disposition, but in his very language; and an unblemishedpurity and correctness of style. This may be easily seen by his Orations;and particularly, by the History of his Consulship, and of his subsequenttransactions, which he composed in the soft and agreeable manner ofXenophon, and made a present of to the poet, A. Furius, an intimateacquaintance of his: but this performance is as little known, as the threebooks of Scaurus before-mentioned. "--"Indeed, I must confess, " saidBrutus, "that both the one and the other, are perfectly unknown to me: butthat is entirely my _own_ fault. I shall now, therefore, request a sightof them from _you_; and am resolved, in future, to be more careful incollecting such valuable curiosities. "--"This Catulus, " said I, "as I havejust observed, was distinguished by the purity of his language; which, though a material accomplishment, is too much neglected by most of theRoman orators; for as to the elegant tone of his voice, and the sweetnessof his accent, as you knew his son, it will be needless to take any noticeof them. His son, indeed, was not in the list of Orators: but whenever hehad occasion to deliver his sentiments in public, he neither wantedjudgment, nor a neat and liberal turn of expression. Nay, even the fatherhimself was not reckoned the foremost in the list of Orators: but still hehad that kind of merit, that notwithstanding, after you had heard two orthree speakers, who were particularly eminent in their profession, youmight judge him inferior; yet, whenever you heard him _alone_, and withoutan immediate opportunity of making a comparison, you would not only besatisfied with him, but scarcely wish for a better advocate. As to Q. Metellus Numidicus, and his Colleague M. Silanus, they spoke, on mattersof government, with as much eloquence as was really necessary for men oftheir illustrious character, and of consular dignity. But M. AureliusScaurus, though he spoke in public but seldom, always spoke very neatly, and he had a more elegant command of the Roman language than most men. A. Albinus was a speaker of the same kind; but Albinus, the Flamen, wasesteemed an _orator_. Q. Capio too had a great deal of spirit, and was abrave citizen: but the unlucky chance of war was imputed to him as acrime, and the general odium of the people proved his ruin. C. And L. Memmius were likewise indifferent orators, and distinguished by thebitterness and asperity of their accusations: for they prosecuted many, but seldom spoke for the defendant. Sp. Torius, on the other hand, wasdistinguished by his _popular_ way of speaking; the very same man, who, byhis corrupt and frivolous law, diminished [Footnote: By dividing greatpart of them among the people. ] the taxes which were levied on the publiclands. M. Marcellus, the father of Aeserninus, though not reckoned aprofessed pleader, was a prompt, and, in some degree, a practised speaker;as was also his son P. Lentulus. L. Cotta likewise, a man of Praetorianrank, was esteemed a tolerable orator; but he never made any greatprogress; on the contrary, he purposely endeavoured, both in the choice ofhis words, and the rusticity of his pronunciation, to imitate the mannerof the ancients. I am indeed sensible that in this instance of Cotta, andin many others, I have, and shall again insert in the list of Orators, those who, in reality, had but little claim to the character. For it was, professedly, my design, to collect an account of all the Romans, withoutexception, who made it their business to excel in the profession of_Eloquence_: and it may be easily seen from this account, by what slowgradations they advanced, and how excessively difficult it is, in everything, to rise to the summit of perfection. As a proof of this, how manyorators have been already recounted, and how much time have we bestowedupon them, before we could force our way, after infinite fatigue anddrudgery, as, among the Greek's, to _Demosthenes_ and _Hyperides_, so now, among our own countrymen, to _Antonius_ and _Crassus_! For, in my mind, these were consummate Orators, and the first among the Romans whosediffusive Eloquence rivalled the glory of the Greeks. Antonius discoveredevery thing which could be of service to his cause, and that in the veryorder in which it would be most so: and as a skilful General posts thecavalry, the infantry, and the light troops, where each of them can act tomost advantage; so Antonius drew up his arguments in those parts of hisdiscourse, where they were likely to have the best effect. He had a quickand retentive memory, and a frankness of manner which precluded anysuspicion of artifice. All his speeches were, in appearance, theunpremeditated effusions of an honest heart; and yet, in reality, theywere preconcerted with so much skill, that the judges were, sometimes, notso well prepared, as they should have been, to withstand the force ofthem. His language, indeed, was not so refined as to pass for the standardof elegance; for which reason he was thought to be rather a carelessspeaker; and yet, on the other hand, it was neither vulgar nor incorrect, but of that solid and judicious turn, which constitutes the real merit ofan Orator, as to the choice of his words. For, as to a purity of style, though this is certainly (as before observed) a very commendable quality, it is not so much so for its intrinsic consequence, as because it is toogenerally neglected. In short, it is not so meritorious to speak ournative tongue correctly, as it is scandalous to speak it otherwise; nor isit so much the property of a good Orator, as of a well-bred Citizen. Butin the choice of his words (in which he had more regard to their weightthan their brilliance) and likewise in the structure of his language, andthe compass of his periods, Antonius conformed himself to the dictates ofreason, and, in a great measure, to the nicer rules of art: though hischief excellence was a judicious management of the figures and decorationsof sentiment. This was likewise the distinguishing excellence ofDemosthenes; in which he was so far superior to all others, as to beallowed, in the opinion of the best judges, to be the Prince of Orators. For the _figures_ (as they are called by the Greeks) are the principalornaments of an able speaker, I mean those which contribute not so much topaint and embellish our language, as to give a lustre to our sentiments. But besides these, of which Antonius had a great command, he had apeculiar excellence in his manner of delivery, both as to his voice andgesture; for the latter was such as to correspond to the meaning of everysentence, without beating time to the words. His hands, his shoulders, theturn of his body, the stamp of his foot, his posture, his air, and, inshort, his every motion, was adapted to his language and sentiments: andhis voice was strong and firm, though naturally hoarse;--a defect which healone was capable of improving to his advantage; for in capital causes, ithad a mournful dignity of accent, which was exceedingly proper, both towin the assent of the judges, and excite their compassion for a sufferingclient: so that in _him_ the observation of Demosthenes was eminentlyverified, who being asked what was the _first_ quality of a good Orator, what the _second_, and what the _third_, constantly replied, A goodenunciation. 

"But many thought that he was equalled, and others that he was evenexcelled by Lucius Crassus. All, however, were agreed in this, thatwhoever had either of them for his advocate, had no cause to wish for abetter. For my own part, notwithstanding the uncommon merit I haveascribed to Antonius, I must also acknowlege, that there cannot be a morefinished character than that of Crassus. He possessed a wonderful dignityof elocution, with an agreeable mixture of wit and pleasantry, which wasperfectly genteel, and without the smallest tincture of scurrility. Hisstyle was correct and elegant without stiffness or affectation: his methodof reasoning was remarkably clear and distinct: and when his cause turnedupon any point of law, or equity, he had an inexhaustible fund ofarguments, and comparative illustrations. For as Antonius had an admirableturn for suggesting apposite hints, and either suppressing or exciting thesuspicions of the hearer; so no man could explain and define, or discuss apoint of equity, with a more copious facility than Crassus; assufficiently appeared upon many other occasions, but particularly in thecause of M. Curius, which was tried before the Centum Viri. For he urged agreat variety of arguments in the defence of right and equity, against theliteral _jubeat_ of the law; and supported them by such a numerous seriesof precedents, that he overpowered Q. Scaevola (a man of uncommonpenetration, and the ablest Civilian of his time) though the case beforethem was only a matter of legal right. But the cause was so ably managedby the two advocates, who were nearly of an age, and both of consularrank, that while each endeavoured to interpret the law in favour of hisclient, Crassus was universally allowed to be the best Lawyer among theOrators, and Scaevola to be the most eloquent Civilian of the age: for thelatter could not only discover with the nicest precision what wasagreeable to law and equity; but had likewise a conciseness and proprietyof expression, which was admirably adapted to his purpose. In short, hehad such a wonderful vein of oratory in commenting, explaining, anddiscussing, that I never beheld his equal; though in amplifying, embellishing, and refuting, he was rather to be dreaded as a formidablecritic, than admired as an eloquent speaker. "--"Indeed, " said Brutus, "though I always thought I sufficiently understood the character ofScaevola, by the account I had heard of him from C. Rutilius, whosecompany I frequented for the sake of his acquaintance with him, I had notthe least idea of his merit as an orator. I am now, therefore, not alittle pleased to be informed, that our Republic has had the honour ofproducing so accomplished a man, and such an excellent genius. "--"Really, my Brutus, " said I, "you may take it from me, that the Roman State hadnever been adorned with two finer characters than these. For, as I havebefore observed, that the one was the best Lawyer among the Orators, andthe other the best Speaker among the Civilians of his time; so thedifference between them, in all other respects, was of such a nature, thatit would almost be impossible for you to determine which of the two youwould rather choose to resemble. For, as Crassus was the closest of allour elegant speakers, so Scaevola was the most elegant among those whowere distinguished by the frugal accuracy of their language: and asCrassus tempered his affability with a proper share of severity, so therigid air of Scaevola was not destitute of the milder graces of an affablecondescension. Though this was really their character, it is very possiblethat I may be thought to have embellished it beyond the bounds of truth, to give an agreeable air to my narrative: but as your favourite sect, myBrutus, the Old Academy, has defined all Virtue to be a just Mediocrity, it was the constant endeavour of these two eminent men to pursue thisGolden Mean; and yet it so happened, that while each of them shared a partof the other's excellence, he preserved his own entire. "--"To speak what Ithink, " replied Brutus, "I have not only acquired a proper acquaintancewith their characters from your account of them, but I can likewisediscover, that the same comparison might be drawn between _you_ and Serv. Sulpicius, which you have just been making between Crassus and Scaevola. "--"In what manner?" said I. --"Because _you_, " replied Brutus, "have takenthe pains to acquire as extensive a knowledge of the law as is necessaryfor an Orator; and Sulpicius, on the other hand, took care to furnishhimself with sufficient eloquence to support the character of an ableCivilian. Besides, your age corresponded as nearly to his, as the age ofCrassus did to that of Scaevola. "--"As to my own abilities, " said I, "therules of decency forbid me to speak of them: but your character of Serviusis a very just one, and I may freely tell you what I think of him. Thereare few, I believe, who have applied themselves more assiduously to theart of Speaking than he did, or indeed to the study of every usefulscience. In our youth, we both of us followed the same liberal exercises;and he afterwards accompanied me to Rhodes, to pursue those studies whichmight equally improve him as a Man and a Scholar; but when he returnedfrom thence, he appears to me to have been rather ambitious to be theforemost man in a secondary profession, than the second in that whichclaims the highest dignity. I will not pretend to say that he could nothave ranked himself among the foremost in the latter profession; but herather chose to be, what he actually made himself, the first Lawyer of histime. "--"Indeed!" said Brutus: "and do you really prefer Servius to Q. Scaevola?"--"My opinion, " said I, "Brutus, is, that Q. Scaevola, and manyothers, had a thorough practical knowledge of the law; but that Serviusalone understood it as _science_: which he could never have done by themere study of the law, and without a previous acquaintance with the artwhich teaches us to divide a whole into its subordinate parts, to, decidean indeterminate idea by an accurate definition: to explain what isobscure, by a clear interpretation; and first to discover what things areof a _doubtful_ nature, then to distinguish them by their differentdegrees of probability; and lastly, to be provided with a certain rule ormeasure by which we may judge what is true, and what false, and whatinferences fairly may, or may not be deduced from any given premises. Thisimportant art he applied to those subjects which, for want of it, werenecessarily managed by others without due order and precision. "--"Youmean, I suppose, " said Brutus, "the Art of Logic. "--"You suppose veryright, " answered I: "but he added to it an extensive acquaintance withpolite literature, and an elegant manner of expressing himself; as issufficiently evident from the incomparable writings he has left behindhim. And as he attached himself, for the improvement of his eloquence, toL. Lucilius Balbus, and C. Aquilius Gallus, two very able speakers; heeffectually thwarted the prompt celerity of the latter (though a keen, experienced man) both in supporting and refuting a charge, by his accuracyand precision, and overpowered the deliberate formality of Balbus (a manof great learning and erudition) by his adroit and dextrous method ofarguing: so that he equally possessed the good qualities of both, withouttheir defects. As Crassus, therefore, in my mind, acted more prudentlythan Scaevola; (for the latter was very fond of pleading causes, in whichhe was certainly inferior to Crassus; whereas the former never engagedhimself in an unequal competition with Scaevola, by assuming the characterof a Civilian;) so Servius pursued a plan which sufficiently discoveredhis wisdom; for as the profession of a Pleader, and a Lawyer, are both ofthem held in great esteem, and give those who are masters of them the mostextensive influence among their fellow-citizens; he acquired an undisputedsuperiority in the one, and improved himself as much in the other as wasnecessary to support the authority of the Civil Law, and promote him tothe dignity of a Consul. "--"This is precisely the opinion I had formed ofhim, " said Brutus. "For, a few years ago I heard him often and veryattentively at Samos, when I wanted to be instructed by him in thePontifical Law, as far as it is connected with the Civil; and I am nowgreatly confirmed in my opinion of him, by finding that it coincides soexactly with yours. I am likewise not a little pleased to observe, thatthe equality of your ages, your sharing the same honours and preferments, and the vicinity of your respective studies and professions, has been sofar from precipitating either of you into that envious detraction of theother's merit, which most people are tormented with, that, instead ofwounding your mutual friendship, it has only served to increase andstrengthen it; for, to my own knowlege, he had the same affection for, andthe same favourable sentiments of _you_, which I now discover in youtowards _him_. I cannot, therefore, help regretting very sincerely, thatthe Roman State has so long been deprived of the benefit of his advice, and of your Eloquence;--a circumstance which is indeed calamitous enoughin itself; but must appear much more so to him who considers into whathands that once respectable authority has been of late, I will not saytransferred, but forcibly wrested. "--"You certainly forget, " said Atticus, "that I proposed, when we began the conversation, to drop all matters ofState; by all means, therefore, let us keep to our plan: for if we oncebegin to repeat our grievances, there will be no end, I need not say toour inquiries, but to our sighs and lamentations. "--"Let us proceed, then, " said I, "without any farther digression, and pursue the plan we setout upon. Crassus (for he is the Orator we were just speaking of) alwayscame into the Forum ready prepared for the combat. He was expected withimpatience, and heard with pleasure. When he first began his Oration(which he always did in a very accurate style) he seemed worthy of thegreat expectations he had raised. He was very moderate in the sway of hisbody, had no remarkable variation of voice, never advanced from the groundhe stood upon, and seldom stamped his foot: his language was forcible, andsometimes warm and pathetic; he had many strokes of humour, which werealways tempered with a becoming dignity; and, what is a difficultcharacter to hit, he was at once very florid, and very concise. In a closecontest, he never met with his equal; and there was scarcely any kind ofcauses, in which he had not signalized his abilities; so that he enrolledhimself very early among the first Orators of the time. He accused C. Carbo, though a man of great Eloquence, when he was but a youth;--anddisplayed his talents in such a manner, that they were not only applauded, but admired by every body. He afterwards defended the Virgin Licinia, whenhe was only twenty-seven years of age; on which occasion he discovered anuncommon share of Eloquence, as is evident from those parts of his Orationwhich he left behind him in writing. As he was then desirous to have thehonour of settling the colony of Narbonne (as he afterwards did) hethought it adviseable to recommend himself, by undertaking the managementof some popular cause. His Oration, in support of the act which wasproposed for that purpose, is still extant; and discovers a greatermaturity of genius than might have been expected at that time of life. Heafterwards pleaded many other causes: but his tribuneship was such aremarkably silent one, that if he had not supped with Granius the beadlewhen he enjoyed that office (a circumstance which has been twice mentionedby Lucilius) we should scarcely have known that a tribune of that name hadexisted. "--"I believe so, " replied Brutus: "but I have heard as little ofthe tribuneship of Scaevola, though I must naturally suppose that he wasthe colleague of Crassus. "--"He was so, " said I, "in all his otherpreferments; but he was not tribune till the year after him; and when hesat in the Rostrum in that capacity, Crassus spoke in support of theServilian law. I must observe, however, that Crassus had not Scaevola forhis colleague in the censorship; for none of the Scaevolas ever sued forthat office. But when the last-mentioned Oration of Crassus was published(which I dare say you have frequently read) he was thirty-four years ofage, which was exactly the difference between his age and mine. For hesupported the law I have just been speaking of, in the very consulshipunder which I was born; whereas he himself was born in the consulship ofQ. Caepio, and C. Laelius, about three years later than Antonius. I haveparticularly noticed this circumstance, to specify the time when the RomanEloquence attained its first _maturity_; and was actually carried to sucha degree of perfection, as to leave no room for any one to carry ithigher, unless by the assistance of a more complete and extensiveknowledge of philosophy, jurisprudence, and history. "--"But does there, "said Brutus, "or will there ever exist a man, who is furnished with allthe united accomplishments you require?"--"I really don't know, " said I;"but we have a speech made by Crassus in his consulship, in praise of Q. Caepio, intermingled with a defence of his conduct, which, though a shortone if we consider it as an Oration, is not so as a Panegyric;--andanother, which was his last, and which he spoke in the 48th year of hisage, at the time he was censor. In these we have the genuine complexion ofEloquence, without any painting or disguise: but his periods (I meanCrassus's) were generally short and concise; and he was fond of expressinghimself in those minuter sentences, or members, which the Greeks callColons. "--"As you have spoken so largely, " said Brutus, "in praise of thetwo last-mentioned Orators, I heartily wish that Antonius had left us someother specimen of his abilities, than his trifling Essay on the Art ofSpeaking, and Crassus more than he has: by so doing, they would havetransmitted their fame to _posterity_; and to us a valuable system ofEloquence. For as to the elegant language of Scaevola, we have sufficientproofs of it in the Orations he has left behind him. "--"For my part, " saidI, "the Oration I was speaking of, on Caepio's case, has been my pattern, and my tutoress, from my very childhood. It supports the dignity of theSenate, which was deeply interested in the debate; and excites thejealousy of the audience against the party of the judges and accusers, whose power it was necessary to expose in the most popular terms. Manyparts of it are very strong and nervous, many others very cool andcomposed; and some are distinguished by the asperity of their language, and not a few by their wit and pleasantry: but much more was said than wascommitted to writing, as is sufficiently evident from several heads of theOration, which are merely proposed without any enlargement or explanation. But the oration in his censorship against his colleague Cn. Domitius, isnot so much an Oration, as an analysis of the subject, or a general sketchof what he had said, with here and there a few ornamental touches, by wayof specimen: for no contest was ever conducted with greater spirit thanthis. Crassus, however, was eminently distinguished by the popular turn ofhis language: but that of Antonius was better adapted to judicial trials, than to a public debate. As we have had occasion to mention him, Domitiushimself must not be left unnoticed: for though he is not enrolled in thelist of Orators, he had a sufficient share both of utterance and genius, to support his character as a magistrate and his dignity as a consul. Imight likewise observe of C. Caelius, that he was a man of greatapplication, and many eminent qualities, and had eloquence enough tosupport the private interests of his friends, and his own dignity in theState. At the same time lived M. Herennius, who was reckoned among themiddling Orators, whose principal merit was the purity and correctness oftheir language; and yet, in a suit for the consulship, he got the betterof L. Philippus, a man of the first rank and family, and of the mostextensive connections, and who was likewise a member of the College, and avery eloquent speaker. _Then_ also lived C. Clodius, who, besides hisconsequence as a nobleman of the first distinction, and a man of the mostpowerful influence, was likewise possessed of a moderate share ofEloquence. Nearly of the same age was C. Titius, a Roman knight, who, inmy judgment, arrived at as high a degree of perfection as a Roman oratorwas able to do, without the assistance of the Grecian literature, and agood share of practice. His Orations have so many delicate turns, such anumber of well-chosen examples, and such an agreeable vein of politeness, that they almost seem to have been composed in the true Attic style. Helikewise transferred his delicacies into his very Tragedies, withingenuity enough, I confess, but not in the tragic taste. But the poet L. Afranius, whom he studiously imitated, was a very smart writer, and, asyou well know, a man of great expression in the dramatic way. Q. RubriusVarro, who with C. Marius, was declared an enemy by the Senate, waslikewise a warm, and a very spirited prosecutor. My relation, M. Gratidius, was a plausible speaker of the same kind, well versed in theGrecian literature, formed by nature for the profession of Eloquence, andan intimate acquaintance of M. Antonius: he commanded under him inCilicia, where he lost his life: and he once commenced a prosecutionagainst C. Fimbria, the father of M. Marius Gratidianus. There havelikewise been several among the Allies, and the Latins, who were esteemedgood Orators; as, for instance, Q. Vettius of Vettium, one of the Marsi, whom I myself was acquainted with, a man of sense, and a concise speaker;--the Q. And D. Valerii of Sora, my neighbours and acquaintances, who werenot so remarkable for their talent of speaking, as for their skill both inthe Greek and Roman literature; and C. Rusticellus of Bononia, anexperienced Orator, and a man of great natural volubility. But the mosteloquent of all those who were not citizens of Rome, was T. BetuciusBarrus of Asculum, some of whose Orations, which were spoken in that city, are still extant: that which he made at Rome against Caepio, is really anexcellent one: the speech which Caepio delivered in answer to it, was madeby Aelius, who composed a number of Orations, but pronounced none himself. But among those of a remoter date, L. Papirius of Fregellae in Latium, whowas almost cotemporary with Ti. Gracchus, was universally esteemed themost eloquent: we have a speech of his in vindication of the Fregellani, and the Latin Colonies, which was delivered before the Senate. "--"And whatthen is the merit, " said Brutus, "which you mean to ascribe to theseprovincial Orators?"--"What else, " replied I, "but the very same which Ihave ascribed to the city-orators; excepting that their language is nottinctured with the same fashionable delicacy?"--"What fashionable delicacydo you mean?" said he. --"I cannot, " said I, "pretend to define it: I onlyknow that there is such a quality existing. When you go to your provincein Gaul, you will be convinced of it. You will there find many expressionswhich are not current in Rome; but these may be easily changed, andcorrected. But, what is of greater importance, our Orators have aparticular accent in their manner of pronouncing, which is more elegant, and has a more agreeable effect than any other. This, however, is notpeculiar to the Orators, but is equally common to every well-bred citizen. I myself remember that T. Tineas, of Placentia, who was a very facetiousman, once engaged in a repartee skirmish with my old friend Q. Granius, the public crier. "--"Do you mean that Granius, " said Brutus, "of whomLucilius has related such a number of stories?"--"The very same, " said I:"but though Tineas said as many smart things as the other, Granius at lastoverpowered him by a certain vernacular _goūt_, which gave an additionalrelish to his humour: so that I am no longer surprised at what is said tohave happened to Theophrastus, when he enquired of an old woman who kept astall, what was the price of something which he wanted to purchase. Aftertelling him the value of it, --"Honest _stranger_, " said she, "I cannotafford it for less": "an answer which nettled him not a little, to thinkthat _he_ who had resided almost all his life at Athens, and spoke thelanguage very correctly, should be taken at last for a foreigner. In thesame manner, there is, in my opinion, a certain accent as peculiar to thenative citizens of Rome, as the other was to those of Athens. But it istime for us to return home; I mean to the Orators of our own growth. Next, therefore, to the two capital Speakers above-mentioned, (that is Crassusand Antonius) came L. Philippus, --not indeed till a considerable timeafterwards; but still he must be reckoned the next. I do not mean, however, though nobody appeared in the interim who could dispute the prizewith him, that he was entitled to the second, or even the third post ofhonour. For, as in a Chariot-race I cannot properly consider _him_ aseither the second, or third winner, who has scarcely got clear of thestarting-post, before the first has reached the goal; so, among Orators, Ican scarcely honour him with the name of a competitor, who has been so fardistanced by the foremost as hardly to appear on the same ground with him. But yet there were certainly some talents to be observed in Philippus, which any person who considers them, without subjecting them to acomparison with the superior merits of the two before-mentioned, mustallow to have been respectable. He had an uncommon freedom of address, alarge fund of humour, great facility in the invention of his sentiments, and a ready and easy manner of expressing them. He was likewise, for thetime he lived in, a great adept in the literature of the Greeks; and, inthe heat of a debate, he could sting, and gash, as well as ridicule hisopponents. Almost cotemporary with these was L. Gellius, who was not somuch to be valued for his positive, as for his negative merits: for he wasneither destitute of learning, nor invention, nor unacquainted with thehistory and the laws of his country; besides which, he had a tolerablefreedom of expression. But he happened to live at a time when manyexcellent Orators made their appearance; and yet he served his friendsupon many occasions to good purpose: in short, his life was so long, thathe was successively cotemporary with a variety of Orators of differentdates, and had an extensive series of practice in judicial causes. Nearlyat the same time lived D. Brutus, who was fellow-consul with Mamercus;--and was equally skilled both in the Grecian and Roman literature. L. Scipio likewise was not an unskilful Speaker; and Cnaeus Pompeius, the sonof Sextus, had some reputation as an Orator; for his brother Sextusapplied the excellent genius he was possessed of, to acquire a thoroughknowledge of the Civil Law, and a complete acquaintance with geometry andthe doctrine of the Stoics. A little before these, M. Brutus, and verysoon after him, C. Bilienus, who was a man of great natural capacity, madethemselves, by nearly the same application, equally eminent in theprofession of the law;--the latter would have been chosen Consul, if hehad not been thwarted by the repeated promotion of Marius, and some othercollateral embarrassments which attended his suit. But the eloquence ofCn. Octavius, which was wholly unknown before his elevation to theConsulship, was effectually displayed, after his preferment to thatoffice, in a great variety of speeches. It is, however, time for us todrop those who were only classed in the number of good _speakers_, andturn our attention to such as were really _Orators_. "--"I think so too, "replied Atticus; "for I understood that you meant to give us an account, not of those who took great pains to be eloquent, but of those who were soin reality. "--"C. Julius then, " said I, (the son of Lucius) was certainlysuperior, not only to his predecessors, but to all his cotemporaries, inwit and humour: he was not, indeed, a nervous and striking Orator, but, inthe elegance, the pleasantry, and the agreeableness of his manner, he hasnot been excelled by any man. There are some Orations of his still extant, in which, as well as in his Tragedies, we may discover a pleasingtranquillity of expression with very little energy. P. Cethegus, hiscotemporary, had always enough to say on matters of civil regulation; forhe had studied and comprehended them with the minutest accuracy; by whichmeans he acquired an equal authority in the Senate with those who hadserved the office of consul, and though he made no figure in a publicdebate, he was a serviceable veteran in any suit of a private nature. Q. Lucretius Vispillo was an acute Speaker, and a good Civilian in the samekind of causes: but Osella was better qualified for a public harangue, than to conduct a judicial process. T. Annius Velina was likewise a man ofsense, and a tolerable pleader; and T. Juventius had a great deal ofpractice in the same way:--the latter indeed was rather too heavy andunanimated, but at the same time he was keen and artful, and knew how toseize every advantage which was offered by his antagonist; to which we mayadd, that he was far from being a man of no literature, and had anextensive knowledge of the Civil Law. His scholar, P. Orbius, who wasalmost cotemporary with me, had no great practice as a pleader; but hisskill in the Civil Law was nothing inferior to his master's. As to TitusAufidius, who lived to a great age, he was a professed imitator of both;and was indeed a worthy inoffensive man, but seldom spoke at the bar. Hisbrother, M. Virgilius, who when he was a tribune of the people, commenceda prosecution against L. Sylla, then advanced to the rank of General, hadas little practice as Aufidius. Virgilius's colleague, P. Magius, was morecopious and diffusive. But of all the Orators, or rather _Ranters_, I everknew, who were totally illiterate and unpolished, and (I might have added)absolutely coarse and rustic, the readiest and keenest, were Q. Sertorius, and C. Gorgonius, the one of consular, and the other of equestrian rank. T. Junius (the son of L. ) who had served the office of tribune, andprosecuted and convicted P. Sextius of bribery, when he was praetor elect, was a prompt and an easy speaker: he lived in great splendor, and had avery promising genius; and, if he had not been of a weak, and indeed asickly constitution, he would have advanced much farther than he did inthe road to preferment. I am sensible, however, that in the account I havebeen giving, I have included many who were neither real, nor reputedOrators; and that I have omitted others, among those of a remoter date, who well deserved not only to have been mentioned, but to be recorded withhonour. But this I was forced to do, for want of better information: forwhat could I say concerning men of a distant age, none of whoseproductions are now remaining, and of whom no mention is made in thewritings of other people? But I have omitted none of those who have fallenwithin the compass of my own knowledge, or that I myself remember to haveheard. For I wish to make it appear, that in such a powerful and ancientrepublic as ours, in which the greatest rewards have been proposed toEloquence, though all have desired to be good speakers, not many haveattempted the talk, and but very few have succeeded. But I shall give myopinion of every one in such explicit terms, that it may be easilyunderstood whom I consider as a mere Declaimer, and whom as an Orator. "

"About the same time, or rather something later than the above-mentionedJulius, but almost cotemporary with each other, were C. Cotta, P. Sulpicius, Q. Varius, Cn. Pomponius, C. Curio, L. Fufius, M. Drusus, andP. Antistius; for no age whatsoever has been distingushed by a morenumerous progeny of Orators. Of these, Cotta and Sulpicius, both in myopinion, and in that of the Public at large, had an evident claim to thepreference. "--"But wherefore, " interrupted Atticus, "do you say, _in yourown opinion, and in that of the Public at large?_ In deciding the meritsof an Orator, does the opinion of the vulgar, think you, always coincidewith that of the learned? Or rather does not one receive the approbationof the populace, while another of a quite opposite character is preferredby those who are better qualified to give their judgment?"--"You havestarted a very pertinent question, " said I; "but, perhaps, _the Public atlarge_ will not approve my answer to it. "--"And what concern need _that_give you, " replied Atticus, "if it meets the approbation of Brutus?"--"Very true, " said I; "for I had rather my _sentiments_ on thequalifications of an Orator would please you and Brutus, than all theworld besides: but as to my _Eloquence_, I should wish _this_ to pleaseevery one. For he who speaks in such a manner as to please the people, must inevitably receive the approbation of the learned. As to the truthand propriety of what I hear, I am indeed to judge of this for myself, aswell as I am able: but the general merit of an Orator must and will bedecided by the effects which his eloquence produces. For (in my opinion atleast) there are three things which an Orator should be able to effect;_viz_. To _inform_ his hearers, to _please_ them, and to _move theirpassions_. By what qualities in the Speaker each of these, effects may beproduced, or by what deficiencies they are either lost, or but imperfectlyperformed, is an enquiry which none but an artist can resolve: but whetheran audience is really so affected by an Orator as shall best answer hispurpose, must be left to their own feelings, and the decision of thePublic. The learned, therefore, and the people at large, have neverdisagreed about who was a good Orator, and who was otherwise. For do yousuppose, that while the Speakers above-mentioned were in being, they hadnot the same degree of reputation among the learned as among the populace?If you had enquired of one of the latter, _who was the most eloquent manin the city_, he might have hesitated whether to say _Antonius_ or_Crassus_; or this man, perhaps, would have mentioned the one, and thatthe other. But would any one have given the preference to _Philippus_, though otherwise a smooth, a sensible, and a facetious Speaker?--that_Philippus_ whom we, who form our judgment upon these matters by rules ofart, have decided to have been the next in merit? Nobody would, I amcertain. For it is the invariable, property of an accomplished Orator, tobe reckoned such in the opinion of the people. Though Antigenidas, therefore, the musician, might say to his scholar, who was but coldlyreceived by the Public, Play on, to please me and the Muses;--I shall sayto my friend Brutus, when he mounts the Rostra, as he frequently does, --Play to me and the people;--that those who hear him may be sensible of theeffect of his Eloquence, while I can likewise amuse myself with remarkingthe causes which produce it. When a Citizen hears an able Orator, hereadily credits what is said;--he imagines every thing to be true, hebelieves and relishes the force of it; and, in short, the persuasivelanguage of the Speaker wins his absolute, his hearty assent. You, who arepossessed of a critical knowledge of the art, what more will you require?The listening multitude is charmed and captivated by the force of hisEloquence, and feels a pleasure which is not to be resisted. What here canyou find to censure? The whole audience is either flushed with joy, oroverwhelmed with grief;--it smiles, or weeps, --it loves, or hates, --itscorns or envies, --and, in short, is alternately seized with the variousemotions of pity, shame, remorse, resentment, wonder, hope, and fear, according as it is influenced by the language, the sentiments, and theaction of the speaker. In this case, what necessity is there to await thesanction of a critic? For here, whatever is approved by the feelings ofthe people, must be equally so by men of taste and erudition: and, in thisinstance of public decision, there can be no disagreement between theopinion of the vulgar, and that of the learned. For though many goodSpeakers have appeared in every species of Oratory, which of them who wasthought to excel the rest in the judgment of the populace, was notapproved as such by every man of learning? or which of our ancestors, whenthe choice of a pleader was left to his own option, did not immediatelyfix it either upon Crassus or Antonius? There were certainly many othersto be had: but though any person might have hesitated to which of theabove two he should give the preference, there was nobody, I believe, whowould have made choice of a third. And in the time of my youth, when Cottaand Hortensius were in such high reputation, who, that had liberty tochoose for himself, would have employed any other?"--"But what occasion isthere, " said Brutus, "to quote the example of other speakers to supportyour assertion? have we not seen what has always been the wish of thedefendant, and what the judgment of Hortensius, concerning yourself? forwhenever the latter shared a cause with you, (and I was often present onthose occasions) the peroration, which requires the greatest exertion ofthe powers of Eloquence, was constantly left to _you_. "--"It was, " said I;"and Hortensius (induced, I suppose, by the warmth of his friendship)always resigned the post of honour to me. But, as to myself, what rank Ihold in the opinion of the people I am unable to determine: as to others, however, I may safely assert, that such of them as were reckoned mosteloquent in the judgment of the vulgar, were equally high in theestimation of the learned. For even Demosthenes himself could not havesaid what is related of Antimachus, a poet of Claros, who, when he wasrehearsing to an audience assembled for the purpose, that voluminous pieceof his which you are well acquainted with, and was deserted by all hishearers except Plato, in the midst of his performance, cried out, "Ishall proceed notwithstanding_; for Plato alone is of _more consequence tome than many thousands_. " "The remark was very just. For an abstruse poem, such as his, only requires the approbation of the judicious few; but adiscourse intended for the people should be perfectly suited to theirtaste. If Demosthenes, therefore, after being deserted by the rest of hisaudience, had even Plato left to hear him, and no one else, I will answerfor it, he could not have uttered another syllable. 'Nay, or could youyourself, my Brutus, if the whole assembly was to leave you, as it oncedid Curio?"--"To open my whole mind to you, " replied he, "I must confessthat even in such causes as fall under the cognizance of a few selectjudges, and not of the people at large, if I was to be deserted by thecasual crowd who came to hear the trial, I should not be able toproceed. "--"The case, then, is plainly this, " said I: "as a flute, whichwill not return its proper sound when it is applied to the lips, would belaid aside by the musician as useless; so, the ears of the people are theinstrument upon which an Orator is to play: and if these refuse to admitthe breath he bestows upon them, or if the hearer, like a restive horse, will not obey the spur, the speaker must cease to exert himself anyfarther. There is, however, the exception to be made; the people sometimesgive their approbation to an orator who does not deserve it. But even herethey approve what they have had no opportunity of comparing with somethingbetter: as, for instance, when they are pleased with an indifferent, or, perhaps, a bad speaker. His abilities satisfy their expectation: they haveseen nothing preferable: and, therefore, the merit of the day, whatever itmay happen to be, meets their full applause. For even a middling Orator, if he is possessed of any degree of Eloquence, will always captivate theear; and the order and beauty of a good discourse has an astonishingeffect upon the human mind. Accordingly, what common hearer who waspresent when Q. Scaevola pleaded for M. Coponius, in the cause above-mentioned, would have wished for, or indeed thought it possible to findany thing which was more correct, more elegant, or more complete? When heattempted to prove, that, as M. Curius was left heir to the estate only incase of the death of his future ward before he came of age, he could notpossibly be a legal heir, when the expected ward was never born;--what didhe leave unsaid of the scrupulous regard which should be paid to theliteral meaning of every testament? what of the accuracy and precisenessof the old and established forms; of law? and how carefully did he specifythe manner in which the will would have been expressed, if it had intendedthat Curius should be the heir in case of a total default of issue? inwhat a masterly manner did he represent the ill consequences to thePublic, if the letter of a will should be disregarded, its intentiondecided by arbitrary conjectures, and the written bequests of plainilliterate men, left to the artful interpretation of a pleader? how oftendid he urge the authority of his father, who had always been an advocatefor a strict adherence to the letter of a testament? and with whatemphasis did he enlarge upon the necessity of supporting the common formsof law? All which particulars he discussed not only very artfully, andskilfully; but in such a neat, --such a close, --and, I may add, in soflorid, and so elegant a style, that there was not a single person amongthe common part of the audience, who could expect any thing more complete, or even think it possible to exist. But when Crassus, who spoke on theopposite side, began with the story of a notable youth, who having found acock-boat as he was rambling along the shore, took it into his headimmediately that he would build a ship to it;--and when he applied thetale to Scaevola, who, from the cock-boat of an argument [which he haddeduced from certain imaginary ill consequences to the Public] representedthe decision of a private will to be a matter of such importance as todeserve he attention of the _Centum-viri_;--when Crassus, I say, in thebeginning of his discourse, had thus taken off the edge of the strongestplea of his antagonist, he entertained his hearers with many other turnsof a similar kind; and, in a short time, changed the serious apprehensionsof all who were present into open mirth and good-humour; which is one ofthose three effects which I have just observed an Orator should be able toproduce. He then proceeded to remark that it was evidently the intentionand the will of the testator, that in cafe, either by death, or default ofissue, there should happen to be no son to fall to his charge, theinheritance should devolve to Curius:--'that most people in a similar casewould express themselves in the same manner, and that it would certainlystand good in law, and always had. By these, and many other observationsof the same kind, he gained the assent of his hearers; which is another ofthe three duties of an Orator. Lastly, he supported, at all events, thetrue meaning and spirit of a will, against the literal construction:justly observing, that there would be an endless cavilling about words, not only in wills, but in all other legal deeds, if the real intention ofthe party was to be disregarded: and hinting very smartly, that hisfriend Scaevola had assumed a most unwarrantable degree of importance, ifno person must afterwards presume to indite a legacy, but in the mustyform which he himself might please to prescribe. As he enlarged on each ofthese arguments with great force and propriety, supported them by a numberof precedents, exhibited them in a variety of views, and enlivened themwith many occasional turns of wit and pleasantry, he gained so muchapplause, and gave such general satisfaction, that it was scarcelyremembered that any thing had been said on the contrary side of thequestion. This was the third, and the most important duty we assigned toan Orator. 

"Here, if one of the people was to be judge, the same person who had heardthe first Speaker with a degree of admiration, would, on hearing thesecond, despise himself for his former want of judgment:--whereas a man oftaste and erudition, on hearing Scaevola, would have observed that he wasreally master of a rich and ornamental style; but if, on comparing themanner in which each of them concluded his cause, it was to be enquiredwhich of the two was the best Orator, the decision of the man of learningwould not have differed from that of the vulgar. What advantage, then, itwill be said, has the skilful critic over the illiterate hearer? A greatand very important advantage; if it is indeed a matter of any consequence, to be able to discover by what means that which is the true and real endof speaking, is either obtained or lost. He has likewise this additionalsuperiority, that when two or more Orators, as has frequently happened, have shared the applauses of the Public, he can judge, on a carefulobservation of the principal merits of each, what is the most perfectcharacter of Eloquence: since whatever does not meet the approbation ofthe people, must be equally condemned by a more intelligent hearer. For asit is easily understood by the sound of a harp, whether the strings areskilfully touched; so it may likewise be discovered from the manner inwhich the passions of an audience are affected, how far the Speaker isable to command them. A man, therefore, who is a real connoisseur in theart, can sometimes by a single glance as he passes through the Forum, andwithout stopping to listen attentively to what is said, form a tolerablejudgment of the ability of the Speaker. When he observes any of the Bencheither yawning, or speaking to the person who is next to him, or lookingcarelessly about him, or sending to enquire the time of day, or teazingthe Quaestor to dismiss the court; he concludes very naturally that thecause upon trial is not pleaded by an Orator who understands how to applythe powers of language to the passions of the judges, as a skilfulmusician applies his fingers to the harp. On the other hand, if, as hepasses by, he beholds the judges looking attentively before them, as ifthey were either receiving some material information, or visibly approvedwhat they had already heard--if he sees them listening to the voice of thePleader with a kind of extasy like a fond bird to some melodious tune;--and, above all, if he discovers in their looks any strong indications ofpity, abhorrence, or any other emotion of the mind;--though he should notbe near enough to hear a single word, he immediately discovers that thecause is managed by a real Orator, who is either performing, or hasalready played his part to good purpose. "

After I had concluded these digressive remarks, my two friends were kindenough to signify their approbation, and I resumed my subject. --"As thisdigression, " said I, "took its rise from Cotta and Sulpicius, whom Imentioned as the two most approved Orators of the age they lived in, Ishall first return to _them, _ and afterwards notice the rest in theirproper order, according to the plan we began upon. I have already observedthat there are two classes of _good_ Orators (for we have no concern withany others) of which the former are distinguished by the simple neatnessand brevity of their language, and the latter by their copious dignity andelevation: but although the preference must always be given to that whichis great and striking; yet, in speakers of real merit, whatever is mostperfect of the kind, is justly entitled to our commendation. It must, however, be observed, that the close and simple Orator should be carefulnot to sink into a driness and poverty of expression; while, on the otherhand, the copious and more stately Speaker should be equally on his guardagainst a swelling and empty parade of words. 

"To begin with Cotta, he had a ready, quick Invention, and spoke correctlyand freely; and as he very prudently avoided every forcible exertion ofhis voice on account of the weakness of his lungs, so his language wasequally adapted to the delicacy of his constitution. There was nothing inhis style but what was neat, compact, and healthy; and (what may justly beconsidered as his greatest excellence) though he was scarcely able, andtherefore never attempted to force the passions of the judges by a strongand spirited elocution, yet he managed them so artfully, that the gentleemotions he raised in them, answered exactly the same purpose, andproduced the same effect, as the violent ones which were excited bySulpicius. For Sulpicius was really the most striking, and, if I may beallowed the expression, the most tragical Orator I ever heard:--his voicewas strong and sonorous, and yet sweet, and flowing:--his gesture, and thesway of his body, was graceful and ornamental, but in such a style as toappear to have been formed for the Forum, and not for the stage:--and hislanguage, though rapid and voluble, was neither loose nor exuberant. Hewas a professed imitator of Crassus, while Cotta chose Antonius for hismodel: but the latter wanted the force of Antonius, and the former theagreeable humour of Crassus. "--"How extremely difficult, then, " saidBrutus, "must be the art of speaking, when such consummate Orators asthese were each of them destitute of one of its principal beauties!"--"Wemay likewise observe, " said I, "in the present instance, that two Oratorsmay have the highest degree of merit, who are totally unlike each other:for none could be more so than Cotta and Sulpicius, and yet both of themwere far superior to any of their cotemporaries. It is therefore thebusiness of every intelligent matter to take notice what is the naturalbent of his pupil's capacity; and, taking that for his guide, to imitatethe conduct of Socrates with his two scholars Theopompus and Ephorus, who, after remarking the lively genius of the former, and the mild and timidbashfulness of the latter, is reported to have said that he applied a spurto the one, and a curb to the other. The Orations now extant, which bearthe name of Sulpicius, are supposed to have been written after his deceaseby my cotemporary P. Canutius, a man indeed of inferior rank, but who, inmy mind, had a great command of language. But we have not a single speechof Sulpicius that was really his own: for I have often heard him say, thathe neither had, nor ever could commit any thing of the kind to writing. And as to Cotta's speech in defence of himself, called a vindication ofthe _Varian Law_, it was composed, at his own request, by L. Aelius. ThisAelius was a man of merit, and a very worthy Roman knight, who wasthoroughly versed in the Greek and Roman literature. He had likewise acritical knowledge of the antiquities of his country, both as to the dateand particulars of every new improvement, and every memorable transaction, and was perfectly well read in the ancient writers;--a branch of learningin which he was succeeded by our friend Varro, a man of genius, and of themost extensive erudition, who afterwards enlarged the plan by manyvaluable collections of his own, and gave a much fuller and more elegantsystem of it to the Public. For Aelius himself chose to assume thecharacter of a Stoic, and neither aimed to be, nor ever was an Orator: buthe composed several Orations for other people to pronounce; as for Q. Metellus, F. Q. Caepio, and Q. Pompeius Rufus; though the latter composedthose speeches himself which he spoke in his own defence, but not withoutthe assistance of Aelius. For I myself was present at the writing of them, in the younger part of my life, when I used to attend Aelius for thebenefit of his instructions. But I am surprised, that Cotta, who wasreally an excellent Orator, and a man of good learning, should be willingthat the trifling Speeches of Aelius mould be published to the world as_his_. 

"To the two above-mentioned, no third person of the same age was esteemedan equal: Pomponius, however, was a Speaker much to my taste; or, atleast, I have very little fault to find with him. But there was noemployment for any in capital causes, excepting for those I have alreadymentioned; because Antonius, who was always courted on these occasions, was very ready to give his service; and Crassus, though not so compliable, generally consented, on any pressing sollicitation, to give _his_. Thosewho had not interest enough to engage either of these, commonly applied toPhilip, or Caesar; but when Cotta and Sulpicius were at liberty, theygenerally had the preference: so that all the causes in which any honourwas to be acquired, were pleaded by these six Orators. We may add, thattrials were not so frequent then as they are at present; neither didpeople employ, as they do now, several pleaders on the same side of thequestion, --a practice which is attended with many disadvantages. Forhereby we are often obliged to speak in reply to those whom we had not anopportunity of hearing; in which case, what has been alledged on theopposite side, is often represented to us either falsely or imperfectly;and besides, it is a very material circumstance, that I myself should bepresent to see with what countenance my antagonist supports hisallegations, and, still more so, to observe the effect of every part ofhis discourse upon the audience. And as every defence should be conductedupon one uniform plan, nothing can be more improperly contrived, than tore-commence it by assigning the peroration, or pathetical part of it, to asecond advocate. For every cause can have but one natural introduction andconclusion; and all the other parts of it, like the members of an animalbody, will best retain their proper strength and beauty, when they areregularly disposed and connected. We may add, that as it is very difficultin a single Oration of any length, to avoid saying something which doesnot comport with the rest of it so well as it ought to do, how much moredifficult must it be to contrive that nothing shall be said, which doesnot tally exactly with the speech of another person who has spoken beforeyou? But as it certainly requires more labour to plead a whole cause, thanonly a part of it, and as many advantageous connections are formed byassisting in a suit in which several persons are interested, the custom, however preposterous in itself, has been readily adopted. 

"There were some, however, who esteemed Curio the third best Orator of theage; perhaps, because his language was brilliant and pompous, and becausehe had a habit (for which I suppose he was indebted to his domesticeducation) of expressing himself with tolerable correctness: for he was aman of very little learning. But it is a circumstance of great importance, what sort of people we are used to converse with at home, especially inthe more early part of life; and what sort of language we have beenaccustomed to hear from our tutors and parents, not excepting the mother. We have all read the Letters of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi; andare satisfied, that her sons were not so much nurtured in their mother'slap, as in the elegance and purity of her language. I have often tooenjoyed the agreeable conversation of Laelia, the daughter of Caius, andobserved in her a strong tincture of her father's elegance. I havelikewise conversed with his two daughters, the Muciae, and hisgranddaughters, the two Liciniae, with one of whom (the wife of Scipio)you, my Brutus, I believe, have sometimes been in company. "--"I have, "replied he, "and was much pleased with her conversation; and the more so, because she was the daughter of Crassus. "--"And what think you, " said I, "of Crassus, the son of that Licinia, who was adopted by Crassus in hiswill?"--"He is said, " replied he, "to have been a man of great genius: andthe Scipio you have mentioned, who was my colleague, likewise appears tome to have been a good Speaker, and an elegant companion. "--"Your opinion, my Brutus, " said I, "is very just. For this family, if I may be allowedthe expression, seems to have been the offspring of Wisdom. As to theirtwo grandfathers, Scipio and Crassus, we have taken notice of themalready: as we also have of their great grandfathers, Q. Metellus, who hadfour sons, --P. Scipio, who, when a private citizen, freed the Republicfrom the arbitrary influence of T. Gracchus, --and Q. Scaevola, the augur, who was the ablest and most affable Civilian of his time. And lastly, howillustrious are the names of their next immediate progenitors, P. Scipio, who was twice Consul, and was called the Darling of the People, --and C. Laelius, who was esteemed the wisest of men?"--"A generous stock indeed!"cries Brutus, "into which the wisdom of many has been successivelyingrafted, like a number of scions on the same tree!"--"I have likewise asuspicion, " replied I, "(if we may compare small things with great) thatCurio's family, though he himself was left an orphan, was indebted to hisfather's instruction, and good example, for the habitual purity of theirlanguage: and so much the more, because, of all those who were held in anyestimation for their Eloquence, I never knew one who was so totally rudeand unskilled in every branch of liberal science. He had not read a singlepoet, or studied a single orator; and he knew little or nothing either ofPublic, Civil, or Common law. We might say almost the same, indeed, ofseveral others, and some of them very able Orators, who (we know) were butlittle acquainted with these useful parts of knowledge; as, for instance, of Sulpicius and Antonius. But this deficiency was supplied in them by anelaborate knowledge of the art of Speaking; and there was not one of themwho was totally unqualified in any of the five [Footnote: Invention, Disposition, Elocution, Memory, and Pronunciation. ] principal parts ofwhich it is composed; for whenever this is the case, (and it matters notin which of those parts it happens) it intirely incapacitates a man toshine as an Orator. Some, however, excelled in one part, and some inanother. Thus Antonius could readily invent such arguments as were most inpoint, and afterwards digest and methodize them to the best advantage; andhe could likewise retain the plan he had formed with great exactness: buthis chief merit was the goodness of his delivery, in which he was justlyallowed to excel. In some of these qualifications he was upon an equalfooting with Crassus, and in others he was superior: but then the languageof Crassus was indisputably preferable to _his_. In the same manner, itcannot be said that either Sulpicius or Cotta, or any other Speaker ofrepute, was absolutely deficient in any one of the five parts of Oratory. But we may justly infer from the example of Curio, that nothing will morerecommend an Orator, than a brilliant and ready flow of expression; for hewas remarkably dull in the invention, and very loose and unconnected inthe disposition of his arguments. The two remaining parts arePronunciation and Memory; in each of which he was so poorly qualified, asto excite the laughter and the ridicule of his hearers. His gesture wasreally such as C. Julius represented it, in a severe sarcasm, that willnever be forgotten; for as he was swaying and reeling his whole body fromside to side, Julius enquired very merrily, _who it was that was speakingfrom a boat_. To the same purpose was the jest of Cn. Sicinius, a veryvulgar sort of man, but exceedingly humourous, which was the onlyqualification he had to recommend him as an Orator. When this man, asTribune of the people, had summoned Curio and Octavius, who were thenConsuls, into the Forum, and Curio had delivered a tedious harangue, whileOctavius sat silently by him, wrapt up in flannels, and besmeared withointments, to ease the pain of the gout;"--"_Octavius, " said he, "you areinfinitely obliged to your colleague; for if he had not tossed and flunghimself about to-day, in the manner he did, you would have certainly havebeen devoured by the flies. _"--"As to his memory, it was so extremelytreacherous, that after he had divided his subject into three generalheads, he would sometimes, in the course of speaking, either add a fourth, or omit the third. In a capital trial, in which I had pleaded for Titinia, the daughter of Cotta, when he attempted to reply to me in defence ofServ. Naevius, he suddenly forgot every thing he had intended to say, andattributed it to the pretended witchcraft, and magic artifices of Titinia. These were undoubted proofs of the weakness of his memory. But, what isstill more inexcusable, he sometimes forgot, even in his writtentreatises, what he had mentioned but a little before. Thus, in a book ofhis, in which he introduces himself as entering into conversation with ourfriend Pansa, and his son Curio, when he was walking home from the Senate-house; the Senate is supposed to have been summoned by Caesar in his firstConsulship; and the whole conversation arises from the son's enquiry whatthe House had resolved upon. Curio launches out into a long invectiveagainst the conduct of Caesar, and, as is generally the custom indialogues, the parties are engaged in a close dispute on the subject: butvery unhappily, though the conversation commences at the breaking up ofthe Senate which Caesar held when he was first Consul, the author censuresthose very actions of the same Caesar, which did not happen till the next, and several other succeeding years of his government in Gaul. "--"Is itpossible then, " said Brutus, with an air of surprize, "that any man, (andespecially in a written performance) could be so forgetful as not todiscover, upon a subsequent perusal of his own work, what an egregiousblunder he had committed?"--"Very true, " said I; "for if he wrote with adesign to discredit the measures which he represents in such an odiouslight, nothing could be more stupid than not to commence his dialogue at aperiod which was subsequent to those measures. But he so entirely forgetshimself, as to tell us, that he did not choose to attend a Senate whichwas held in one of Caesar's future consulships, in the very same dialoguein which he introduces himself as returning home from a Senate which washeld in his first consulship. It cannot, therefore, be wondered at, thathe who was so remarkably defective in a faculty which is the steward ofour other intellectual powers, as to forget, even in a written treatise, amaterial circumstance which he had mentioned but a little before, shouldfind his memory fail him, as it generally did, in a sudden andunpremeditated harangue. It accordingly happened, though he had manyconnections, and was fond of speaking in public, that few causes wereintrusted to his management. But, among his cotemporaries, he was esteemednext in merit to the first Orators of the age; and that merely, as I saidbefore, for his good choice of words, and his uncommon readiness, andgreat fluency of expression. His Orations, therefore, may deserve acursory perusal. It is true, indeed, they are much too languid andspiritless; but they may yet be of service to enlarge and improve anaccomplishment, of which he certainly had a moderate share; and which hasso much force and efficacy, that it gave Curio the appearance andreputation of an Orator, without the assistance of any other good quality. 

"But to return to our subject, --C. Carbo, of the same age, was likewisereckoned an Orator of the second class: he was the son, indeed, of thetruly eloquent man before-mentioned, but was far from being an acuteSpeaker himself: he was, however, esteemed an Orator. His language wastolerably nervous, he spoke with ease, --and there was an air of authorityin his address that was perfectly natural. But Q. Varius was a man ofquicker invention, and, at the same time, had an equal freedom ofexpression: besides which, he had a bold and spirited delivery, and a veinof elocution which was neither poor, nor coarse and vulgar;--in short, youneed not hesitate to pronounce him an _Orator_. Cn. Pomponius was avehement, a rousing, and a fierce and eager Speaker, and more inclined toact the part of a prosecutor, than of an advocate. But far inferior tothese was L. Fufius; though his application was, in some measure, rewardedby the success of his prosecution against M. Aquilius. For as to M. Drusus, your great uncle, who spoke like an Orator only upon matters ofgovernment;--L. Lucullus, who was indeed an artful Speaker, and yourfather, my Brutus, who was well acquainted with the Common and Civil Law;--M. Lucullus, and M. Octavius, the son of Cnaeus, who was a man of somuch authority and address, as to procure the repeal of Sempronius'scorn-act, by the suffrages of a full assembly of the people;--Cn. Octavius, the son of Marcus, --and M. Cato, the father, and Q. Catulus, the son;--we must excuse these (if I may so express myself) from thefatigues and dangers of the field, --that is, from the management ofjudicial causes, and place them in garison over the general interestsof the Republic, a duty to which they seem to have been sufficientlyadequate. I should have assigned the same post to Q. Caepio, if hehad not been so violently attached to the Equestrian Order, as to sethimself at variance with the Senate. I have also remarked, that Cn. Carbo, M. Marius, and several others of the same stamp, who wouldnot have merited the attention of an audience that had any taste forelegance, were extremely well suited to address a tumultuous crowd. In the same class, (if I may be allowed to interrupt the series ofmy narrative) L. Quintius lately made his appearance: though Palicanus, it must be owned, was still better adapted to please the ears of thepopulace. But, as I have mentioned this inferior kind of Speakers, I must be so just to L. Apuleius Saturninus, as to observe that, of allthe factious declaimers since the time of the Gracchi, he was generallyesteemed the ablest: and yet he caught the attention of the Public, moreby his appearance, his gesture, and his dress, than by any real fluency ofexpression, or even a tolerable share of good sense. But C. ServiliusGlaucia, though the most abandoned wretch that ever existed, was very keenand artful, and excessively humourous; and notwithstanding the meanness ofhis birth, and the depravity of his life, he would have been advanced tothe dignity of a Consul in his Praetorship, if it had been judged lawfulto admit his suit: for the populace were entirely at his devotion, and hehad secured the interest of the Knights, by an act he had procured intheir favour. He was slain in the open Forum, while he was Praetor, on thesame day as the tribune Saturninus, in the Consulship of Marius andFlaccus; and bore a near resemblance to Hyperbolus, the Athenian, whoseprofligacy was so severely stigmatized in the old Attic Comedies. Thesewere succeeded by Sext. Titius, who was indeed a voluble Speaker, andpossessed a ready comprehension, but he was so loose and effeminate in hisgesture, as to furnish room for the invention of a dance, which was calledthe _Titian jigg_: so careful should we be to avoid every oddity in ourmanner of speaking, which may afterwards be exposed to ridicule by aludicrous imitation. 

"But we have rambled back insensibly to a period which has been alreadyexamined: let us, therefore, return to that which we were reviewing alittle before. Cotemporary with Sulpicius was P. Antistius, --a plausibledeclaimer, who, after being silent for several years, and exposed, (as heoften was) not only to the contempt, but the derision of his hearers, first spoke with applause in his tribuneship, in a real and veryinteresting protest against the illegal application of C. Julius for theconsulship; and that so much the more, because though Sulpicius himself, who then happened to be his colleague, spoke on the same side of thedebate, Antistius argued more copiously, and to better purpose. Thisraised his reputation so high, that many, and (soon afterwards) everycause of importance, was eagerly recommended to his patronage. To speakthe truth, he had a quick conception, a methodical judgment, and aretentive memory; and though his language was not much embellished, it wasvery far from being low. In short, his style was easy, and flowing, andhis appearance rather genteel than otherwise: but his action was a littledefective, partly through the disagreeable tone of his voice, and partlyby a few ridiculous gestures, of which he could not entirely breakhimself. He flourished in the time between the flight and the return ofSylla, when the Republic was deprived of a regular administration ofjustice, and of its former dignity and splendor. But the very favourablereception he met with was, in some measure, owing to the great scarcity ofgood Orators which then prevailed in the Forum. For Sulpicius was dead;Cotta and Curio were abroad; and no pleaders of any eminence were left butCarbo and Pomponius, from each of whom he easily carried off the palm. Hisnearest successor in the following age was L. Sisenna, who was a man oflearning, had a taste for the liberal Sciences, spoke the Roman languagewith accuracy, was well acquainted with the laws and constitution of hiscountry, and had a tolerable share of wit; but he was not a Speaker of anygreat application, or extensive practice; and as he happened to live inthe intermediate time between the appearance of Sulpicius and Hortensius, he was unable to equal the former, and forced to yield to the superiortalents of the latter. We may easily form a judgment of his abilities fromthe historical Works he has left behind him; which, though evidentlypreferable to any thing of the kind which had appeared before, may serveas a proof that he was far below the standard of perfection, and that thisspecies of composition had not then been improved to any great degree ofexcellence among the Romans. But the genius of Q. Hortensius, even in hisearly youth, like one of Phidias's statues, was no sooner beheld than itwas universally admired! He spoke his first Oration in the Forum in theconsulship of L. Crassus and Q. Scaevola, to whom it was personallyadressed; and though he was then only nineteen years old, he descendedfrom the Rostra with the hearty approbation not only of the audience ingeneral, but of the two Consuls themselves, who were the most intelligentjudges in the whole city. He died in the consulship of L. Paulus and C. Marcellus; from which it appears that he was four-and-forty years aPleader. We shall review his character more at large in the sequel: but inthis part of my history, I chose to include him in the number of Oratorswho were rather of an earlier date. This indeed must necessarily happen toall whose lives are of any considerable length: for they are equallyliable to a comparison with their Elders and their Juniors; as in the caseof the poet Attius, who says that both he and Pacuvius applied themselvesto the cultivation of the drama under the fame Aediles; though, at thetime, the one was eighty, and the other only thirty years old. ThusHortensius may be paralleled not only with those who were properly hiscontemporaries, but with me, and you, my Brutus, and with others of aprior date. For he began to speak in public while Crassus was living buthis fame increased when he appeared as a joint advocate with Antonius andPhilip (at that time in the decline of life) in defence of Cn. Pompeius, --a cause in which (though a mere youth) he distinguished himself above therest. He may therefore be included in the lift of those whom I have placedin the time of Sulpicius; but among his proper coėvals, such as M. Piso, M. Crassus, Cn. Lentulus, and P. Lentulus Sura, he excelled beyond thereach of competition; and after these he happened upon me, in the earlypart of my life (for I was eight years younger than himself) and spent anumber of years with me in pursuit of the same forensic glory: and atlast, (a little before his death) he once pleaded with _you_, in defenceof Appius Claudius, as I have frequently done for others. Thus you see, myBrutus, I am come insensibly to _yourself_, though there was undoubtedly agreat variety of Orators between my first appearance in the Forum, andyours. But as I determined, when we began the conversation, to make nomention of those among them who are still living, to prevent yourenquiring too minutely what is my opinion concerning each; I shall confinemyself to such as are now no more. "--"That is not the true reason, " saidBrutus, "why you choose to be silent about the living. "--"What then do yousuppose it to be, " said I?--"You are only fearful, " replied he, "that yourremarks should afterwards be mentioned by us in other company, and that, by this means, you should expose yourself to the resentment of those, whomyou may not think it worth your while to notice. "--"Indeed, " answered I, "I have not the least doubt of your secresy. "--"Neither have you anyreason, " said he; "but after all, I suppose, you had rather be silent_yourself_, than rely upon our taciturnity. "--"To confess the truth, "replied I, "when I first entered upon the subject, I never imagined that Ishould have extended it to the age now before us; whereas I have beendrawn by a continued series of history among the moderns of latest date. "--"Introduce, then, " said he, "those intermediate Orators you may thinkworthy of our notice: and afterwards let us return to yourself, andHortensius. "--"To Hortensius, " replied I, "with all my heart; but as to my_own_ character, I shall leave it to other people to examine, if theychoose to take the trouble. "--"I can by no means agree to _that_, " saidhe: "for though every part of the account you have favoured us with, hasentertained me very agreeably, it now begins to seem tedious, because I amimpatient to hear something of _yourself_: I do not mean the wonderfulqualities, but the _progressive steps_, and advances of your Eloquence;for the former are sufficiently known already both to me, and the wholeworld. "--"As you do not require me, " said I, "to sound the praises of myown genius, but only to describe my labour and application to improve it, your request shall be complied with. But to preserve the order of mynarrative, I shall first introduce such other Speakers as I think ought tobe previously noticed: and I shall begin with M. Crassus, who wascontemporary with Hortensius. With a tolerable share of learning, and avery moderate capacity, his application, assiduity, and interest, procuredhim a place among the ablest Pleaders of the time for several years. Hislanguage was pure, his expression neither low nor ungenteel, and his ideaswell digested: but he had nothing in him that was florid, and ornamental;and the real ardor of his mind was not supported by any vigorous exertionof his voice, so that he pronounced almost every thing in the same uniformtone. His equal, and professed antagonist C. Fimbria was not able tomaintain his character so long; and though he always spoke with a strongand elevated voice, and poured forth a rapid torrent of well-chosenexpressions, he was so immoderately vehement that you might justly besurprised that the people should have been so absent and inattentive as toadmit a _madman_, like him, into the lift of Orators. As to Cn. Lentulus, his action acquired him a reputation for his Eloquence very far beyond hisreal abilities: for though he was not a man of any great penetration(notwithstanding he carried the appearance of it in his countenance) norpossessed any real fluency of expression (though he was equally speciousin this respect as in the former)--yet by his sudden breaks, andexclamations, he affected such an ironical air of surprize, with a sweetand sonorous turn of voice, and his whole action was so warm and lively, that his defects were scarcely noticed. For as Curio acquired thereputation of an Orator with no other quality than a tolerable freedom ofElocution; so Cn. Lentulus concealed the mediocrity of his otheraccomplishments by his _action_, which was really excellent. Much the samemight be said of P. Lentulus, whose poverty of invention and expressionwas secured from notice by the mere dignity of his presence, his correctand graceful gesture, and the strength and sweetness of his voice: and hismerit depended so entirely upon his action, that he was more deficient inevery other quality than his namesake. But M. Piso derived all his talentsfrom his erudition; for he was much better versed in the Grecianliterature than any of his predecessors. He had, however, a naturalkeenness of discernment, which he greatly improved by art, and exertedwith great address and dexterity, though in very indifferent language: buthe was frequently warm and choleric, sometimes cold and insipid, and nowand then rather smart and humourous. He did not long support the fatigue, and emulous contention of the Forum; partly, on account of the weakness ofhis constitution; and partly, because he could not submit to the folliesand impertinencies of the common people (which we Orators are forced toswallow) either, as it was generally supposed, from a peculiar morosenessof temper, or from a liberal and ingenuous pride of heart. Afteracquiring, therefore, in his youth, a tolerable degree of reputation, hischaracter began to sink: but in the trial of the Vestals, he againrecovered it with some additional lustre, and being thus recalled to thetheatre of Eloquence, he kept his rank, as long as he was able to supportthe fatigue of it; after which his credit declined, in proportion as heremitted his application. --P. Murena had a moderate genius, but waspassionately fond of the study of Antiquity; he applied himself with equaldiligence to the Belles Lettres, in which he was tolerably versed; inshort, he was a man of great industry, and took the utmost pains todistinguish himself. --C. Censorinus had a good stock of Grecianliterature, explained whatever he advanced with great neatness andperspicuity, and had a graceful action, but was too cold and unanimatedfor the Forum. --L. Turius with a very indifferent genius, but the mostindefatigable application, spoke in public very often, in the best mannerhe was able; and, accordingly, he only wanted the votes of a few Centuriesto promote him to the Consulship. --C. Macer was never a man of muchinterest or authority, but was one of the most active Pleaders of histime; and if his life, his manners, and his very looks, had not ruined thecredit of his genius, he would have ranked higher in the lift of Orators. He was neither copious, nor dry and barren; neither eat and embellished, nor wholly inelegant; and his voice, his gesture, and every part of hisaction, was without any grace: but in inventing and digesting his ideas, he had a wonderful accuracy, such as no man I ever saw either possessedor exerted in a more eminent degree; and yet, some how, he displayed itrather with the air of a Quibbler, than of an Orator. Though he hadacquired some reputation in public causes, he appeared to most advantageand was most courted and employed in private ones. --C. Piso, who comesnext in order, had scarcely any exertion, but he was a Speaker of a veryconvertible style; and though, in fact, he was far from being slow ofinvention, he had more penetration in his look and appearance than hereally possessed. --His cotemporary M. Glabrio, though carefully instructedby his grandfather Scaevola, was prevented from distinguishing himself byhis natural indolence and want of attention. --L. Torquatus, on thecontrary, had an elegant turn of expression, and a clear comprehension, and was perfectly genteel and well-bred in his whole manner. --But Cn. Pompeius, my coeval, a man who was born to excel in every thing, wouldhave acquired a more distinguished reputation for his Eloquence, if he hadnot been diverted from the pursuit of it by the more dazzling charms ofmilitary fame. His language was naturally bold and elevated, and he wasalways master of his subject; and as to his powers of enunciation, hisvoice was sonorous and manly, and his gesture noble, and full of dignity. --D. Silanus, another of my cotemporaries, and your father-in-law, was nota man of much application, but he had a very competent share ofdiscernment, and elocution. --Q. Pompeius, the son of Aulus, who had thetitle of _Bithynicus_, and was about two years older than myself, was, tomy own knowledge, remarkably fond of the study of Eloquence, had anuncommon stock of learning, and was a man of indefatigable industry andperseverance: for he was connected with me and M. Piso, not only as anintimate acquaintance, but as an associate in our studies, and privateexercises. His elocution was but poorly recommended by his action: forthough the former was sufficiently copious and diffusive, there wasnothing graceful in the latter. --His contemporary, P. Autronius, had avery clear, and strong voice; but he was distinguished by no otheraccomplishment. --L. Octavius Reatinus died in his youth, while he was infull practice: but he ascended the rostra with more assurance, thanability. --C. Staienus, who changed his name into Aelius by a kind of self-adoption, was a warm, an abusive, and indeed a furious speaker; which wasso agreeable to the taste of many, that he would have risen to some rankin the State, if it had not been for a crime of which he was clearlyconvicted, and for which he afterwards suffered. --At the same time werethe two brothers C. And L. Caepasius, who, though men of an obscurefamily, and little previous consequence, were yet, by mere dint ofapplication, suddenly promoted to the Quaestorship, with no otherrecommendation than a provincial and unpolished kind of Oratory. --That Imay not seem to have put a wilful slight on any of the vociferous tribe, Imust also notice C. Cosconius Calidianus, who, without any discernment, amused the people with a rapidity of language (if such it might be called)which he attended with a perpetual hurry of action, and a most violentexertion of his voice. --Of much the same cast was Q. Arrius, who may beconsidered as a second-hand M. Crassus. He is a striking proof of whatconsequence it is in such a city as ours to devote one's-self to theoccasions of _the many_, and to be as active as possible in promotingtheir safety, or their honour. For by these means, though of the lowestparentage, having raised himself to offices of rank, and to considerablewealth and influence, he likewise acquired the reputation of a tolerablepatron, without either learning or abilities. But as inexperiencedchampions, who, from a passionate desire to distinguish themselves in theCircus, can bear the blows of their opponents without shrinking, are oftenoverpowered by the heat of the sun, when it is increased by the reflectionof the sand; so _he_, who had hitherto supported even the sharpestencounters with good success, could not stand the severity of that year ofjudicial contest, which blazed upon him like a summer's sun. "

"Upon my word, " cried Atticus, "you are now treating us with the very_dregs_ of Oratory, and you have entertained us in this manner for sometime: but I did not offer to interrupt you, because I never dreamed youwould have descended so low as to mention the _Staieni_ and _Autronii_!"--"As I have been speaking of the dead, you will not imagine, I suppose, "said I, "that I have done it to court their favour: but in pursuing theorder of history, I was necessarily led by degrees to a period of timewhich falls within the compass of our own knowledge. But I wish it to benoticed, that after recounting all who ever ventured to speak in public, we find but few, (very few indeed!) whose names are worth recording; andnot many who had even the repute of being Orators. Let us, however, returnto our subject. T. Torquatus, then, the son of Titus, was a man oflearning, (which he first acquired in the school of Molo in Rhodes, ) andof a free and easy elocution which he received from Nature. If he hadlived to a proper age, he would have been chosen Consul, without anycanvassing; but he had more ability for speaking than inclination; _so_that, in fact, he did not do justice to the art he professed; and yet hewas never wanting to his duty, either in the private causes of hisfriends and dependents, or in his senatorial capacity. --My townsman too, P. Pontidius, pleaded a number of private causes. He had a rapidity ofexpression, and a tolerable quickness of comprehension: but he was verywarm, and indeed rather too choleric and irascible; so that he oftenwrangled not only with his antagonist, but (what appears very strange)with the judge himself, whom it was rather his business to sooth andgratify. --M. Messala, who was something younger than myself, was far frombeing a poor and an abject Pleader, and yet he was not a very embellishedone. He was judicious, penetrating, and wary, very exact in digesting andmethodizing his subject, and a man of uncommon diligence and application, and of very extensive practice. --As to the two Metelli (Celer and Nepos)these also had a moderate share of employment at the bar; but beingdestitute neither of learning nor abilities, they chiefly appliedthemselves (and with some success) to debates of a more popular kind. --ButCaius Lentulus Marcellinus, who was never reckoned a bad Speaker, wasesteemed a very eloquent one in his Consulship. He wanted neithersentiment, nor expression; his voice was sweet and sonorous; and he had asufficient stock of humour. --C. Memmius, the son of Lucius, was a perfectadept in the _belles lettres_ of the Greeks; for he had an insuperabledisgust to the literature of the Romans. He was a neat and polishedSpeaker, and had a sweet and harmonious turn of expression; but as he wasequally averse to every laborious effort either of the mind or the tongue, his Eloquence declined in proportion as he lessened his application. "--"But I heartily wish, " said Brutus, "that you would give us your opinionof those Orators who are still living; or, if you are determined to saynothing of the rest, there are two at least, (that is Caesar andMarcellus, whom I have often heard you speak of with the highestapprobation) whose characters would give me as much entertainment as anyof those you have already specified. "--"But why, " answered I, "would youexpect that I would give you my opinion of men who are as well known toyourself as to me?"--"Marcellus, indeed, " replied he, "I am very wellacquainted with; but as to Caesar, I know little of _him_. For I have_heard_ the former very often: but, by the time I was able to judge formyself, the latter had set out for his province. "--"Mighty well, " said I;"and what think you of him you have heard so often?"--"What else can Ithink, " replied he, "but that you will soon have an Orator, who will verynearly resemble yourself?"--"If that is the case, " answered I, "pray thinkof him as favourably as you can. " "I do, " said he; "for he pleases me veryhighly; and not without reason. He is absolutely master of his trade, and, neglecting every other profession, has applied himself solely to _this_;and, for that purpose, has persevered in the rigorous task of composing adaily Essay in writing. His words are well chosen; his language is fulland copious; and every thing he says receives an additional ornament fromthe graceful tone of his voice, and the dignity of his action. In short, he is so compleat an Orator, that there is no quality I know of, in whichI can think him deficient. But he is still more to be admired, for beingable, in these unhappy times, (which are marked with a distress that, bysome cruel fatality, has overwhelmed us all) to console himself, asopportunity offers, with the consciousness of his own integrity, and bythe frequent renewal of his literary pursuits. I saw him lately atMitylene; and then (as I have already hinted) I saw him a thorough man. For though I had before discovered in him a strong resemblance ofyourself, the likeness was much improved, after he was enriched by theinstructions of your learned, and very intimate friend Cratippus. "--"Though I acknowledge, " said I, "that I have listened with pleasure toyour Elogies on a very worthy man, for whom I have the warmest esteem, they have led me insensibly to the recollection of our common miseries, which our present conversation was intended to suspend. But I wouldwillingly hear what is Atticus's opinion of Caesar. "--"Upon my word, "replied Atticus, "you are wonderfully consistent with your plan, to saynothing _yourself_ of the living: and indeed, if you was to deal with_them_, as you already have with the _dead_, and say something of everypaltry fellow that occurs to your memory, you would plague us with_Autronii_ and _Steiani_ without end. But though you might possibly haveit in view not to incumber yourself with such a numerous crowd ofinsignificant wretches; or perhaps, to avoid giving any one room tocomplain that he was either unnoticed, or not extolled according to hisimaginary merit; yet, certainly, you might have said something of Caesar;especially, as your opinion of _his_ abilities is well known to everybody, and his concerning _your's_ is very far from being a secret. But, however, " said he, (addressing himself to Brutus) "I really think ofCaesar, and every body else says the same of this accurate connoisseur inthe Art of Speaking, that he has the purest and the most elegant commandof the Roman language of all the Orators that have yet appeared: and thatnot merely by domestic habit, as we have lately heard it observed of thefamilies of the Laelii and the Mucii, (though even here, I believe, thismight partly have been the case) but he chiefly acquired and brought it toits present perfection, by a studious application to the most intricateand refined branches of literature, and by a careful and constantattention to the purity of his style. But that _he_, who, involved as hewas in a perpetual hurry of business, could dedicate to _you_, my Cicero, a laboured Treatise on the Art of Speaking correctly; that _he_, who, inthe first book of it, laid it down as an axiom, that an accurate choice ofwords is the foundation of Eloquence; and who has bestowed, " said he, (addressing himself again to Brutus) "the highest encomiums on this friendof ours, who yet chooses to leave Caesar's character to _me_;--that _he_should be a perfect master of the language of polite conservation, is acircumstance which is almost too obvious to be mentioned. " "I said, _thehighest encomiums_, " pursued Atticus, "because he says in so many words, when he addresses himself to Cicero--_if others have bestowed all theirtime and attention to acquire a habit of expressing themselves with easeand correctness, how much is the name and dignity of the Roman peopleindebted to you, who are the highest pattern, and indeed the firstinventor of that rich fertility of language which distinguishes yourperformances?_"--Indeed, " said Brutus, "I think he has extolled your meritin a very friendly, and a very magnificent style: for you are not only the_highest pattern_, and even the _first inventor_ of all our _fertility_ oflanguage, which alone is praise enough to content any reasonable man, butyou have added fresh honours to the name and dignity of the Roman people;for the very excellence in which we had hitherto been conquered by thevanquished Greeks, has now been either wrested from their hands, orequally shared, at least, between us and them. So that I prefer thishonourable testimony of Caesar, I will not say to the public thanksgiving, which was decreed for your _own_ military services, but to the triumphs ofmany heroes. "--"Very true, " replied I, "provided this honourable testimonywas really the voice of Caesar's judgment, and not of his friendship: for_he_ certainly has added more to the dignity of the Roman people, whoeverhe may be (if indeed any such man has yet existed) who has not onlyexemplified and enlarged, but first produced this rich fertility ofexpression, than the doughty warrior who has stormed a few paltry castlesof the Ligurians, which have furnished us, you know, with many repeatedtriumphs. In reality, if we can submit to hear the truth, it may beasserted (to say nothing of those god-like plans, which, supported by thewisdom of our Generals, has frequently saved the sinking State both abroadand at home) that an Orator is justly entitled to the preference to anyCommander in a petty war. But the General, you will say, is the moreserviceable man to the public. Nobody denies it: and yet (for I am notafraid of provoking your censure, in a conversation which leaves each ofus at liberty to say what he thinks) I had rather be the author of thesingle Oration of Crassus, in defence of Curius, than be honoured with twoLigurian triumphs. You will, perhaps, reply, that the storming a castle ofthe Ligurians was a thing of more consequence to the State, than that theclaim of Curius should be ably supported. This I own to be true. But itwas also of more consequence to the Athenians, that their houses should besecurely roofed, than to have their city graced with a most beautifulstatue of Minerva: and yet, notwithstanding this, I would much rather havebeen a Phidias, than the most skilful joiner in Athens. In the presentcase, therefore, we are not to consider a man's usefulness, but thestrength of his abilities; especially as the number of painters andstatuaries, who have excelled in their profession, is very small; whereas, there can never be any want of joiners and mechanic labourers. Butproceed, my Atticus, with Caesar; and oblige us with the remainder of hischaracter. "--"We see then, " said he, "from what has just been mentioned, that a pure and correct style is the groundwork, and the very basis andfoundation, upon which an Orator must build his other accomplishments:though, it is true, that those who had hitherto possessed it, derived itmore from early habit, than from any principles of art. It is needless torefer you to the instances of Laelius and Scipio; for a purity oflanguage, as well as of manners, was the characteristic of the age theylived in. It could not, indeed, be applied to every one; for their twocotemporaries, Caecilius and Pacuvius, spoke very incorrectly: but yetpeople in general, who had not resided out of the city, nor been corruptedby any domestic barbarisms, spoke the Roman language with purity. Time, however, as well at Rome as in Greece, soon altered matters for the worse:for this city, (as had formerly been the case at Athens) was resorted toby a crowd of adventurers from different parts, who spoke very corruptly;which shews the necessity of reforming our language, and reducing it to acertain standard, which shall not be liable to vary like the capriciouslaws of custom. Though we were then very young, we can easily remember T. Flaminius, who was joint-consul with Q. Metellus: he was supposed to speakhis native language with correctness, but was a man of no Literature. Asto Catulus, he was far indeed from being destitute of learning, as youhave already observed: but his reputed purity of diction was chiefly owingto the sweetness of his voice, and the delicacy of his accent. Cotta, who, by his broad pronunciation, threw off all resemblance of the elegant toneof the Greeks, and affected a harsh and rustic utterance, quite oppositeto that of Catulus, acquired the same reputation of correctness bypursuing a wild and unfrequented path. But Sisenna, who had the ambitionto think of reforming our phraseology, could not be lashed out of hiswhimsical and new-fangled turns of expression, by all the raillery of C. Rufius. "--"What do you refer to?" said Brutus; "and who was the CaiusRufius you are speaking of?"--"He was a noted prosecutor, " replied he, "some years ago. When this man had supported an indictment against oneChristilius, Sisenna, who was counsel for the defendant, told him, thatseveral parts of his accusation were absolutely _spitatical_. [Footnote:In the original _sputatilica_, worthy to be spit upon. It appears, fromthe connection, to have been a very unclassical word, whimsically derivedby the author of it from _sputa_, spittle. ] _My Lords_, cried Rufius tothe judges, _I shall be cruelly over-reached, unless you give me yourassistance. His charge overpowers my comprehension; and I am afraid he hassome unfair design upon me. What, in the name of Heaven, can be intend by_SPITATICAL? _I know the meaning of_ SPIT, _or_ SPITTLE; _but this horrid_ATICAL, _at the end of it, absolutely puzzles me. _ The whole Bench laughedvery heartily at the singular oddity of the expression: my old friend, however, was still of opinion, that to speak correctly, was to speakdifferently from other people. But Caesar, who was guided by theprinciples of art, has corrected the imperfections of a vicious custom, byadopting the rules and improvements of a good one, as he found themoccasionally displayed in the course of polite conversation. Accordingly, to the purest elegance of expression, (which is equally necessary to everywell-bred Citizen, as to an Orator) he has added all the various ornamentsof Elocution; so that he seems to exhibit the finest painting in the mostadvantageous point of view. As he has such extraordinary merit even in thecommon run of his language, I must confess that there is no person I knowof, to whom he should yield the preference. Besides, his manner ofspeaking, both as to his voice and gesture, is splendid and noble, withoutthe least appearance of artifice or affectation: and there is a dignity inhis very presence, which bespeaks a great and elevated mind. "--"Indeed, "said Brutus, "his Orations please me highly; for I have had thesatisfaction to read several of them. He has likewise wrote somecommentaries, or short memoirs, of his own transactions;"--"and such, "said I, "as merit the highest approbation: for they are plain, correct, and graceful, and divested of all the ornaments of language, so as toappear (if I may be allowed the expression) in a kind of undress. Butwhile he pretended only to furnish the loose materials, for such as mightbe inclined to compose a regular history, he may, perhaps, have gratifiedthe vanity of a few literary _Frisseurs_: but he has certainly preventedall sensible men from attempting any improvement on his plan. For inhistory, nothing is more pleasing than a correct and elegant brevity ofexpression. With your leave, however, it is high time to return to thoseOrators who have quitted the stage of life. C. Sicinius then, who was agrandson of the Censor Q. Pompey, by one of his daughters, died after hisadvancement to the Quaestorship. He was a Speaker of some merit andreputation, which he derived from the system of Hermagoras; who, though hefurnished but little assistance for acquiring an ornamental style, gavemany useful precepts to expedite and improve the invention of an Orator. For in this System we have a collection of fixed and determinate rules forpublic speaking; which are delivered indeed without any shew or parade, (and, I might have added, in a trivial and homely form) but yet are soplain and methodical, that it is almost impossible to mistake the road. Bykeeping close to these, and always digesting his subject before heventured to speak upon it, (to which we may add, that he had a tolerablefluency of expression) he so far succeeded, without any other assistance, as to be ranked among the pleaders of the day. --As to C. Visellius Varro, who was my cousin, and a cotemporary of Sicinius, he was a man of greatlearning. He died while he was a member of the Court of Inquests, intowhich he had been admitted after the expiration of his Aedileship. Thepublic, I confess, had not the same opinion of his abilities that I have;for he never passed as a man of Sterling Eloquence among the people. Hisstyle was excessively quick and rapid, and consequently obscure; for, infact, it was embarrassed and blinded by the celerity of its course: andyet, after all, you will scarcely find a man who had a better choice ofwords, or a richer vein of sentiment. He had besides a complete fund ofpolite literature, and a thorough knowledge of the principles ofjurisprudence, which he learned from his father Aculeo. To proceed in ouraccount of the dead, the next that presents himself is L. Torquatus, whomyou will not so readily pronounce a connoisseur in the Art of Speaking(though he was by no means destitute of elocution) as, what is called bythe Greeks, _a political Adept_. He had a plentiful stock of learning, notindeed of the common sort, but of a more abstruse and curious nature: hehad likewise an admirable memory, and a very sensible and elegant turn ofexpression; all which qualities derived an additional grace from thedignity of his deportment, and the integrity of his manners. I was alsohighly pleased with the style of his cotemporary Triarius, which expressedto perfection, the character of a worthy old gentleman, who had beenthoroughly polished by the refinements of Literature. --What a venerableseverity was there in his look! What forcible solemnity in his language!and how thoughtful and deliberate every word he spoke!"--At the mention ofTorquatus and Triarius, for each of whom he had the most affectionateveneration, --"It fills my heart with anguish, " said Brutus, "(to omit athousand other circumstances) when I reflect, as I cannot help doing, onyour mentioning the names of these worthy men, that your long-respectedauthority was insufficient to procure an accommodation of our differences. The Republic would not otherwise have been deprived of these, and manyother excellent Citizens. "--"Not a word more, " said I, on this melancholysubject, which can only aggravate our sorrow: for as the remembrance ofwhat is already past is painful enough, the prospect of what is yet tocome is still more cutting. Let us, therefore, drop our unavailingcomplaints, and (agreeably to our plan) confine our attention to theforensic merits of our deceased friends. Among those, then, who lost theirlives in this unhappy war, was M. Bibulus, who, though not a professedorator, was a very accurate writer, and a solid and experienced advocate:and Appius Claudius, your father-in-law, and my colleague and intimateacquaintance, who was not only a hard student, and a man of learning, buta practised Orator, a skilful Augurist and Civilian, and a thorough Adeptin the Roman History. --As to L. Domitius, he was totally unacquaintedwith any rules of art; but he spoke his native language with purity, andhad a great freedom of address. We had likewise the two Lentuli, men ofconsular dignity; one of whom, (I mean Publius) the avenger of my wrongs, and the author of my restoration, derived all his powers andaccomplishments from the assistance of Art, and not from the bounty ofNature: but he had such a great and noble disposition, that he claimed allthe honours of the most illustrious Citizens, and supported them with theutmost dignity of character. --The other (L. Lentulus) was an animatedSpeaker, for it would be saying too much, perhaps, to call him an Orator--but, unhappily, he had an utter aversion to the trouble of thinking. Hisvoice was sonorous; and his language, though not absolutely harsh andforbidding, was warm and rigorous, and carried in it a kind of terror. Ina judicial trial, you would probably have wished for a more agreeable anda keener advocate: but in a debate on matters of government, you wouldhave thought his abilities sufficient. --Even Titus Postumius had suchpowers of utterance, as were not to be despised: but in political matters, he spoke with the same unbridled ardour he fought with: in short, he wasmuch too warm; though it must be owned he possessed an extensive knowledgeof the laws and constitution of his country. "--"Upon my word, " criedAtticus, "if the persons you have mentioned were still living, I should beapt to imagine, that you was endeavouring to solicit their favour. For youintroduce every body who had the courage to stand up and speak his mind:so that I almost begin to wonder how M. Servilius has escaped yournotice. "--"I am, indeed, very sensible, " replied I, "that there have beenmany who never spoke in public, that were much better qualified for thetalk, than those Orators I have taken the pains to enumerate: [Footnote:This was probably intended as an indirect Compliment to Atticus. ] but Ihave, at least, answered one purpose by it, which is to shew you, that inthis populous City, we have not had very many who had the resolution tospeak at all; and that even among these, there have been few who wereentitled to our applause. I cannot, therefore, neglect to take some noticeof those worthy knights, and my intimate friends, very lately deceased, P. Comminius Spoletinus, against whom I pleaded in defence of C. Cornelius, and who was a methodical, a spirited, and a ready Speaker; and T. Accius, of Pisaurum, to whom I replied in behalf of A. Cluentius, and who was anaccurate, and a tolerably copious Advocate: he was also well instructed inthe precepts of Hermagoras, which, though of little service to embellishand enrich our Elocution, furnish a variety of arguments, which, like theweapons of the light infantry, may be readily managed, and are adapted toevery subject of debate. I must add, that I never knew a man of greaterindustry and application. As to C. Piso, my son-in-law, it is scarcelypossible to mention any one who was blessed with a finer capacity. He wasconstantly employed either in public speaking, and private declamatoryexercises, or, at least, in writing and thinking: and, consequently, hemade such a rapid progress, that he rather seemed to fly than to run. Hehad an elegant choice of expression, and the structure of his periods wasperfectly neat and harmonious; he had an astonishing variety and strengthof argument, and a lively and agreeable turn of sentiment: and his gesturewas naturally so graceful, that it appeared to have been formed (which itreally was not) by the nicest rules of art. I am rather fearful, indeed, that I should be thought to have been prompted by my affection for him tohave given him a greater character than he deserved: but this is so farfrom being the case, that I might justly have ascribed to him manyqualities of a different and more valuable nature: for in continence, social piety, and every other kind of virtue, there was scarcely any ofhis cotemporaries who was worthy to be compared with him. --M. Caelius toomust not pass unnoticed, notwithstanding the unhappy change, either of hisfortune or disposition, which marked the latter part of his life. As longas he was directed by my influence, he behaved himself so well as aTribune of the people, that no man supported the interests of the Senate, and of all the good and virtuous, in opposition to the factious and unrulymadness of a set of abandoned citizens, with more firmness than _he_ did:a part in which he was enabled to exert himself to great advantage, by theforce and dignity of his language, and his lively humour, and genteeladdress. He spoke several harangues in a very sensible style, and threespirited invectives, which originated from our political disputes: and hisdefensive speeches, though not equal to the former, were yet tolerablygood, and had a degree of merit which was far from being contemptible. After he had been advanced to the Aedileship, by the hearty approbation ofall the better sort of citizens, as he had lost my company (for I was thenabroad in Cilicia) he likewise lost himself; and entirely sunk his credit, by imitating the conduct of those very men, whom he had before sosuccessfully opposed. --But M. Calidius has a more particular claim to ournotice for the singularity of his character; which cannot so properly besaid to have entitled him to a place among our other Orators, as todistinguish him from the whole fraternity; for in him we beheld the mostuncommon, and the most delicate sentiments, arrayed in the softest andfinest language imaginable. Nothing could be so easy as the turn andcompass of his periods; nothing so ductile; nothing more pliable andobsequious to his will, so that he had a greater command of it than anyOrator whatever. In short, the flow of his language was so pure andlimpid, that nothing could be clearer; and so free, that it was neverclogged or obstructed. Every word was exactly in the place where it shouldbe, and disposed (as Lucilius expresses it) with as much nicety as in acurious piece of Mosaic-work. We may add, that he had not a singleexpression which was either harsh, unnatural, abject, or far-fetched; andyet he was so far from confining himself to the plain and ordinary mode ofspeaking, that he abounded greatly in the metaphor, --but such metaphors asdid not appear to usurp a post that belonged to another, but only tooccupy their own. These delicacies were displayed not in a loose anddisfluent style; but in such a one as was strictly _numerous_, without_either_ appearing to be so, or running on with a dull uniformity ofsound. He was likewise master of the various ornaments of language andsentiment which the Greeks call _figures_, whereby he enlivened andembellished his style as with so many forensic decorations. We may addthat he readily discovered, upon all occasions, what was the real point ofdebate, and where the stress of the argument lay; and that his method ofranging his ideas was extremely artful, his action genteel, and his wholemanner very engaging and very sensible. In short, if to speak agreeably isthe chief merit of an Orator, you will find no one who was betterqualified than Calidius. But as we have observed a little before, that itis the business of an Orator to instruct, to please, and _to move thepassions_; he was, indeed, perfectly master of the two first; for no onecould better elucidate his subject, or charm the attention of hisaudience. But as to the third qualification, --the moving and alarming thepassions, --which is of much greater efficacy than the two former, he waswholly destitute of it. He had no force, --no exertion;--either by his ownchoice, and from an opinion that those who had a loftier turn ofexpression, and a more warm and spirited action, were little betther thanmadmen; or because it was contrary to his natural temper, and habitualpractice; or, lastly, because it was beyond the strength of his abilities. If, indeed, it is a useless quality, his want of it was a real excellence:but if otherwise, it was certainly a defect. I particularly remember, thatwhen he prosecuted Q. Gallius for an attempt to poison him, and pretendedthat he had the plainest proofs of it, and could produce many letters, witnesses, informations, and other evidences to put the truth of hischarge beyond a doubt, interspersing many sensible and ingenious remarkson the nature of the crime;--I remember, I say, that when it came to myturn to reply to him, after urging every argument which the case itselfsuggested, I insisted upon it as a material circumstance in favour of myclient, that the prosecutor, while he charged him with a design againsthis life, and assured us that he had the most indubitable proofs of itthen in his hands, related his story with as much ease, and as muchcalmness, and indifference, as if nothing had happened. "--"Would it havebeen possible, " said I, (addressing myself to Calidius) "that you shouldspeak with this air of unconcern, unless the charge was purely aninvention of your own? and, above all, that you, whose Eloquence has oftenvindicated the wrongs of other people with so much spirit, should speak socoolly of a crime which threatened your life? Where was that expression ofresentment which is so natural to the injured? Where that ardour, thateagerness, which extorts the most pathetic language even from men of thedullest capacities? There was no visible disorder in your mind, no emotionin your looks and gesture, no smiting of the thigh or the forehead, noreven a single stamp of the foot. You was, therefore, so far frominteresting our passions in your favour, that we could scarcely keep oureyes open, while you was relating the dangers you had so narrowly escaped. Thus we employed the natural defect, or if you please, the sensiblecalmness of an excellent Orator, as an argument to invalidate hischarge. "--"But is it possible to doubt, " cried Brutus, "whether this was asensible quality, or a defect? For as the greatest merit of an Orator isto be able to inflame the passions, and give them such a biass as shallbest answer his purpose; he who is destitute of this must certainly bedeficient in the most capital part of his profession. "--"I am of the sameopinion, " said I; "but let us now proceed to him (Hortensius) who is theonly remaining Orator worth noticing; after which, as you may seem toinsist upon it, I shall say something of myself. I must first, however, dojustice to the memory of two promising youths, who, if they had lived to ariper age, would have acquired the highest reputation for theirEloquence. "--"You mean, I suppose, " said Brutus, "C. Curio, and C. Licinius Calvus. "--"The very same, " replied I. "One of them, besides hisplausible manner, had such an easy and voluble flow of expression, andsuch an inexhaustible variety, and sometimes accuracy of sentiment, thathe was one of the most ready and ornamental speakers of his time. Thoughhe had received but little instruction from the professed masters of theart, Nature had furnished him with an admirable capacity of the practiceof it. I never, indeed, discovered in him any great degree of application;but he was certainly very ambitious to distinguish himself; and if he hadcontinued to listen to my advice, as he had begun to do, he would havepreferred the acquisition of real honour to that of untimely grandeur. "--"What do you mean, " said Brutus? "Or in what manner are these two objectsto be distinguished?"--"I distinguish them thus, " replied I: "As honour isthe reward of virtue, conferred upon a man by the choice and affection ofhis fellow-citizens, he who obtains it by their free votes and suffragesis to be considered, in my opinion, as an honourable member of thecommunity. But he who acquires his power and authority by taking advantageof every unhappy incident, and without the consent of his fellow-citizens, as Curio aimed to do, acquires only the name of honour, without thesubstance. Whereas, if he had hearkened to me, he would have risen to thehighest dignity, in an honourable manner, and with the hearty approbationof all men, by a gradual advancement to public offices, as his father andmany other eminent citizens had done before. I often gave the same adviceto P. Crassus, the son of Marcus, who courted my friendship in the earlypart of his life; and recommended it to him very warmly, to consider_that_ as the truest path to honour which had been already marked out tohim by the example of his ancestors. For he had been extremely welleducated, and was perfectly versed in every branch of polite literature:he had likewise a penetrating genius, and an elegant variety ofexpression; and appeared grave and sententious without arrogance, andmodest and diffident without dejection. But like many other young men hewas carried away by the tide of ambition; and after serving a short timewith reputation as a volunteer, nothing could satisfy him but to try hisfortune as a General, --an employment which was confined by the wisdom ofour ancestors to men who had arrived at a certain age, and who, even then, were obliged to submit their pretensions to the uncertain issue of apublic decision. Thus, by exposing himself to a fatal catastrophe, whilehe was endeavouring to rival the fame of Cyrus and Alexander, who lived tofinish their desperate career, he lost all resemblance of L. Crassus, andhis other worthy Progenitors. 

"But let us return to Calvus whom we have just mentioned, --an Orator whohad received more literary improvements than Curio, and had a moreaccurate and delicate manner of speaking, which he conducted with greattaste and elegance; but, (by being too minute and nice a critic uponhimself, ) while he was labouring to correct and refine his language, hesuffered all the force and spirit of it to evaporate. In short, it was soexquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer; butit was little noticed by the common people in a crowded Forum, which isthe proper theatre of Eloquence. "--"His aim, " said Brutus, "was to beadmired as an _Attic_ Orator: and to this we must attribute that accurateexility of style, which he constantly affected. "--"This, indeed, was hisprofessed character, " replied I: "but he was deceived himself, and ledothers into the same mistake. It is true, whoever supposes that to speakin the _Attic_ taste, is to avoid every awkward, every harsh, everyvicious expression, has, in this sense, an undoubted right to refuse hisapprobation to every thing which is not strictly _Attic_. For he mustnaturally detest whatever is insipid, disgusting, or invernacular; whilehe considers a correctness and propriety of language as the religion, andgood-manners of an Orator:--and every one who pretends to speak in publicshould adopt the same opinion. But if he bestows the name of Atticism on ahalf-starved, a dry, and a niggardly turn of expression, provided it isneat, correct, and genteel, I cannot say, indeed, that he bestows itimproperly; as the Attic Orators, however, had many qualities of a moreimportant nature, I would advise him to be careful that he does notoverlook their different kinds and degrees of merit, and their greatextent and variety of character. The Attic Speakers, he will tell me, arethe models upon which he wishes to form his Eloquence. But which of themdoes he mean to fix upon? for they are not all of the same cast. Who, forinstance, could be more unlike each other than Demosthenes and Lysias? orthan Demosthenes and Hyperides? Or who more different from either of them, than Aeschines? Which of them, then, do you propose to imitate? If only_one_, this will be a tacit implication, that none of the rest were truemasters of Atticism: if _all_, how can you possibly succeed, when theircharacters are so opposite? Let me further ask you, whether DemetriusPhalereus spoke in the Attic style? In my opinion, his Orations have thevery smell of Athens. But he is certainly more florid than eitherHyperides or Lysias; partly from the natural turn of his genius, andpartly by choice. There were likewise two others, at the time we arespeaking of, whose characters were equally dissimilar; and yet both ofthem were truly _Attic_. The first (Charisius) was the author of a numberof speeches, which he composed for his friends, professedly in imitationof Lysias:--and the other (Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes) wroteseveral Orations, and a regular History of what was transacted in Athensunder his own observation; not so much, indeed, in the style of anHistorian, as of an Orator. Hegesias took the former for his model, andhad so vain a conceit of his own taste for Atticism, that he consideredhis predecessors, who were really masters of it, as mere rustics incomparison of himself. But what can be more insipid, more frivolous, ormore puerile, than that very concinnity of expression which he actuallyacquired?"--"_But still we wish to resemble the Attic Speakers_. "--"Do so, by all means. But were not those, then, true Attic Speakers, we have justbeen mentioning?"--"_Nobody denies it; and these are the men weimitate. _"--"But how? when they are so very different, not only from eachother, but from all the rest of their contemporaries?"--"_True; butThucydides is our leading pattern_. "--"This too I can allow, if you designto compose histories, instead of pleading causes. For Thucydides was bothan exact, and a stately historian: but he never intended to write modelsfor conducting a judicial process. I will even go so far as to add, that Ihave often commended the speeches which he has inserted into his historyin great numbers; though I must frankly own, that I neither _could_imitate them, if I _would, _ nor indeed _would, _ if I _could;_ like a manwho would neither choose his wine so new as to have been turned off in thepreceding vintage, nor so excessively old as to date its age from theconsulship of Opimius or Anicius. "--"_The latter_, you'll say, _bears thehighest price_. " "Very probable; but when it has too much age, it has lostthat delicious flavour which pleases the palate, and, in my opinion, isscarcely tolerable. "--"_Would you choose, then, when you have a mind toregale yourself, to apply to a fresh, unripened cask?_" "By no means; butstill there is a certain age, when good wine arrives at its utmostperfection. In the same manner, I would recommend neither a raw, unmellowed style, which, (if I may so express myself) has been newly drawnoff from the vat; nor the rough, and antiquated language of the grave andmanly Thucydides. For even _he_, if he had lived a few years later, wouldhave acquired a much softer and mellower turn of expression. "--"_Let us, then, imitate Demosthenes_. "--"Good Gods! to what else do I direct all myendeavours, and my wishes! But it is, perhaps, my misfortune not tosucceed. These _Atticisers_, however, acquire with ease the paltrycharacter they aim at; not once recollecting that it is not only recordedin history, but must have been the natural consequence of his superiorfame, that when Demosthenes was to speak in public, all Greece flocked incrowds to hear him. But when our _Attic_ gentry venture to speak, they arepresently deserted not only by the little throng around them who have nointerest in the dispute, (which alone is a mortifying proof of theirinsignificance) but even by their associates and fellow-advocates. If tospeak, therefore, in a dry and lifeless manner, is the true criterion ofAtticism, they are heartily welcome to enjoy the credit of it: but if theywish to put their abilities to the trial, let them attend the Comitia, ora judicial process of real importance. The open Forum demands a fuller, and more elevated tone: and _he_ is the Orator for me, who is souniversally admired that when he is to plead an interesting cause, all thebenches are filled beforehand, the tribunal crowded, the clerks andnotaries busy in adjusting their seats, the populace thronging about therostra, and the judge brisk, and vigilant;--_he_, who has such acommanding air, that when he rises up to speak, the whole audience ishushed into a profound silence, which is soon interrupted by theirrepeated plaudits, and acclamations, or by those successive bursts oflaughter, or violent transports of passion, which he knows how to exciteat his pleasure; so that even a distant observer, though unacquainted withthe subject he is speaking upon, can easily discover that his hearers arepleased with him, and that a _Roscius_ is performing his part on thestage. Whoever has the happiness to be thus followed and applauded is, beyond dispute, an _Attic_ speaker: for such was Pericles, --such wasHyperides, and Aeschines, --and such, in the most eminent degree, was thegreat Demosthenes! If indeed, these connoisseurs, who have so much disliketo every thing bold and ornamental, only mean to say that an accurate, ajudicious, and a neat, and compact, but unembellished style, is really an_Attic_ one, they are not mistaken. For in an art of such wonderful extentand variety as that of speaking, even this subtile and confined charactermay claim a place: so that the conclusion will be, that it is verypossible to speak in the _Attic_ taste, without deserving the name of anOrator; but that all in general who are truly eloquent, are likewise_Attic_ Speakers. --It is time, however, to return to Hortensius. "--"Indeed, I think so, " cried Brutus: "though I must acknowledge that thislong digression of yours has entertained me very agreeably. "

"But I made some remarks, " said Atticus, "which I had several times a mindto mention; only I was loath to interrupt you. As your discourse, however, seems to be drawing towards an end, I think I may venture to out withthem. "--"By all means, " replied I. --"I readily grant, then, " said he, "that there is something very humourous and elegant in that continued_Irony_, which Socrates employs to so much advantage in the dialogues ofPlato, Xenophon, and Aeschines. For when a dispute commences on the natureof wisdom, he professes, with a great deal of humour and ingenuity, tohave no pretensions to it himself; while, with a kind of concealedraillery, he ascribes the highest degree of it to those who had thearrogance to lay an open claim to it. Thus, in Plato, he extolsProtagoras, Hippias, Prodicus, Gorgias, and several others, to the skies:but represents himself as a mere ignorant. This in _him_ was peculiarlybecoming; nor can I agree with Epicurus, who thinks it censurable. But ina professed History, (for such, in fact, is the account you have beengiving us of the Roman Orators) I shall leave you to judge, whether anapplication of the _Irony_ is not equally reprehensible, as it would be ingiving a judicial evidence. "--"Pray, what are you driving at, " said I, --"for I cannot comprehend you. "--"I mean, " replied he, "in the first place, that the commendations which you have bestowed upon some of our Orators, have a tendency to mislead the opinion of those who are unacquainted withtheir true characters. There were likewise several parts of your account, at which I could scarcely forbear laughing: as, for instance, when youcompared old Cato to Lysias. He was, indeed, a great, and a veryextraordinary man. Nobody, I believe, will say to the contrary. But shallwe call him an Orator? Shall we pronounce him the rival of Lysias, who wasthe most finished character of the kind? If we mean to jest, thiscomparison of your's would form a pretty _Irony_: but if we are talking inreal earnest, we should pay the same scrupulous regard to truth, as if wewere giving evidence upon oath. As a Citizen, a Senator, a General, and, in short, a man who was distinguished by his prudence, his activity, andevery other virtue, your favourite Cato has my highest approbation. I canlikewise applaud his speeches, considering the time he lived in. Theyexhibit the out-lines of a great genius; but such, however, as areevidently rude and imperfect. In the same manner, when you represented his_Antiquities_ as replete with all the graces of Oratory, and compared Catowith Philistus and Thucydides, did you really imagine, that you couldpersuade me and Brutus to believe you? or would you seriously degradethose, whom none of the Greeks themselves have been able to equal, into acomparison with a stiff country, gentleman, who scarcely suspected thatthere was any such thing in being, as a copious and ornamental style? Youhave likewise said much in commendation of Galba;--if as the best Speakerof his age, I can so far agree with you, for such was the character hebore:--but if you meant to recommend him as an _Orator_, produce hisOrations (for they are still extant) and then tell me honestly, whetheryou would wish your friend Brutus here to speak as _he_? Lepidus too wasthe author of several Speeches, which have received your approbation; inwhich I can partly join with you, if you consider them only as specimensof our ancient Eloquence. The same might be said of Africanus and Laelius, than whose language (you tell us) nothing in the world can be sweeter:nay, you have mentioned it with a kind of veneration, and endeavoured todazzle our judgment by the great character they bore, and the uncommonelegance of their manners. Divest it of these adventitious Graces, andthis sweet language of theirs will appear so homely, as to be scarcelyworth noticing. Carbo too was mentioned as one of our capital Orators; andfor this only reason, --that in speaking, as in all other professions, whatever is the best of its kind, for the time being, how deficient soeverin reality, is always admired and applauded. What I have said of Carbo, isequally true of the Gracchi: though, in some particulars, the characteryou have given them was no more than they deserved. But to say nothing ofthe rest of your Orators, let us proceed to Antonius and Crassus, your twoparagons of Eloquence, whom I have heard myself, and who were certainlyvery able Speakers. To the extraordinary commendation you have bestowedupon them, I can readily give my assent; but not, however, in such anunlimited manner as to persuade myself that you have received as muchimprovement from the Speech in support of the Servilian Law, as Lysippussaid he had done by studying the famous [Footnote: _Doryphorus_. A Spear-man. ] statue of Polycletus. What you have said on _this_ occasion Iconsider as an absolute _Irony:_ but I shall not inform you why I thinkso, lest you should imagine I design to flatter you. I shall thereforepass over the many fine encomiums you have bestowed upon _these_; and whatyou have said of Cotta and Sulpicius, and but very lately of your pupilCaelius. I acknowledge, however, that we may call them Orators: but as tothe nature and extent of their merit, let your own judgment decide. It isscarcely worth observing, that you have had the additional good-nature tocrowd so many daubers into your list, that there are some, I believe, whowill be ready to wish they had died long ago, that you might have had anopportunity to insert _their_ names among the rest. "--"You have opened awide field of enquiry, " said I, "and started a subject which deserves aseparate discussion; but we must defer it to a more convenient time. For, to settle it, a great variety of authors must be examined, and especially_Cato_: which could not fail to convince you, that nothing was wanting tocomplete his pieces, but those rich and glowing colours which had not thenbeen invented. As to the above Oration of Crassus, he himself, perhaps, could have written better, if he had been willing to take the trouble; butnobody else, I believe, could have mended it. You have no reason, therefore, to think I spoke _ironically_, when I mentioned it as the guideand _tutoress_ of my Eloquence: for though you seem to have a higheropinion of my capacity, in its present state, you must remember that, inour youth, we could find nothing better to imitate among the Romans. Andas to my admitting so _many_ into my list of Orators, I only did it (as Ihave already observed) to shew how few have succeeded in a profession, inwhich all were desirous to excel. I therefore insist upon it that you donot consider _me_ in the present case, as an _Ironist_; though we areinformed by C. Fannius, in his History, that _Africanus_ was a veryexcellent one. "--"As you please about _that_, " cried Atticus: "though, bythe bye, I did not imagine it would have been any disgrace to you, to bewhat Africanus and Socrates have been before you. "--"We may settle _this_another time, " interrupted Brutus: "but will you be so obliging, " said he, (addressing himself to _me_) "as to give us a critical analysis of some ofthe old speeches you have mentioned?"--"Very willingly, " replied I; "butit must be at Cuma, or Tusculum, when opportunity offers: for we are nearneighbours, you know, in both places. At present, let us return to_Hortensius_, from whom we have digressed a second time. "

"Hortensius, then, who began to speak in public when he was very young, was soon employed even in causes of the greatest moment: and though hefirst appeared in the time of Cotta and Sulpicius, (who were only tenyears older) and when Crassus and Antonius, and afterwards Philip andJulius, were in the height of their reputation, he was thought worthy tobe compared with either of them in point of Eloquence. He had such anexcellent memory as I never knew in any person; so that what he hadcomposed in private, he was able to repeat, without notes, in the verysame words he had made use of at first. He employed this natural advantagewith so much readiness, that he not only recollected whatever he hadwritten or premeditated himself, but remembered every thing that had beensaid by his opponents, without the help of a prompter. He was likewiseinflamed with such a passionate fondness for the profession, that I neversaw any one, who took more pains to improve himself; for he would notsuffer a day to elapse, without either speaking in the Forum, or composingsomething at home; and very often he did both in the same day. He had, besides, a turn of expression which was very far from being low andunelevated; and possessed two other accomplishments, in which no one couldequal him, --an uncommon clearness and accuracy in stating the points hewas to speak to; and a neat and easy manner of collecting the substance ofwhat had been said by his antagonist, and by himself. He had likewise anelegant choice of words, an agreeable flow in his periods, and a copiousElocution, which he was partly indebted for to a fine natural capacity, and partly acquired by the most laborious rhetorical exercises. In short, he had a most retentive view of his subject, and always divided andparcelled it out with the greatest exactness; and he very seldomoverlooked any thing which the case could suggest, that was proper eitherto support his _own_ allegations, or to refute those of his opponent. Lastly, he had a sweet and sonorous voice; and his gesture had rather moreart in it, and was more exactly managed, than is requisite to an Orator. 

"While _he_ was in the height of his glory, Crassus died, Cotta wasbanished, our public trials were intermitted by the Marsic war, and Imyself made my first appearance in the Forum. Hortensius joined the army, and served the first campaign as a volunteer, and the second as a militaryTribune: Sulpicius was made a lieutenant general; and Antonius was absenton a similar account. The only trial we had, was that upon the Varian Law;the rest, as I have just observed, having been intermitted by the war. Wehad scarcely any body left at the bar but L. Memmius, and Q. Pompeius, whospoke mostly on their own affairs; and, though far from being Orators ofthe first distinction, were yet tolerable ones, (if we may creditPhilippus, who was himself a man of some Eloquence) and in supporting anevidence, displayed all the poignancy of a prosecutor, with a moderatefreedom of Elocution. The rest, who were esteemed our capital Speakers, were then in the magistracy, and I had the benefit of hearing theirharangues almost every day. C. Curio was chosen a Tribune of the people;though he left off speaking after being once deserted by his wholeaudience. To him I may add Q. Metellus Celer, who, though certainly noOrator, was far from being destitute of utterance: but Q. Varius, C. Carbo, and Cn. Pomponius, were men of real Elocution, and might almost besaid to have lived upon the Rostra. C. Julius too, who was then a CuruleAedile, was daily employed in making Speeches to the people, which werecomposed with great neatness and accuracy. But while I attended the Forumwith this eager curiosity, my first disappointment was the banishment ofCotta: after which I continued to hear the rest with the same assiduity asbefore; and though I daily spent the remainder of my time in reading, writing, and private declamation, I cannot say that I much relished myconfinement to these preparatory exercises. The next year Q. Varius wascondemned, and banished, by his own law: and I, that I might acquire acompetent knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, then attachedmyself to Q. Scaevola, the son of Publius, who, though he did not chooseto undertake the charge of a pupil, yet by freely giving his advice tothose who consulted him, he answered every purpose of instruction to suchas took the trouble to apply to him. In the succeeding year, in whichSylla and Pompey were Consuls, as Sulpicius, who was elected a Tribune ofthe people, had occasion to speak in public almost every day, I had anopportunity to acquaint myself thoroughly with his manner of speaking. Atthis time Philo, a philosopher of the first name _in the Academy_, withmany of the principal Athenians, having deserted their native home, andfled to Rome, from the fury of Mithridates, I immediately became hisscholar, and was exceedingly taken with his philosophy; and, besides the, pleasure I received from the great variety and sublimity of his matter, Iwas still more inclined to confine, my attention to that study; becausethere was reason to apprehend that our laws and judicial proceedings wouldbe wholly overturned by the continuance of the public disorders. In thesame year Sulpicius lost his life; and Q. Catulus, M. Antonius, and C. Julius, three Orators, who were partly cotemporary with each other, weremost inhumanly put to death. Then also I attended the lectures of Molo theRhodian, who was newly come to Rome, and was both an excellent Pleader, and an able Teacher of the Art. I have mentioned these particulars, which, perhaps, may appear foreign to our purpose, that _you_, my Brutus, (forAtticus is already acquainted with them) may be able to mark my progress, and observe how closely I trod upon the heels of Hortensius. 

"The three following years the city was free from the tumult of arms; buteither by the death, the voluntary retirement, or the flight of our ablestOrators (for even M. Crassus, and the two Lentuli, who were then in thebloom of youth, had all left us) Hortensius, of course, was the firstSpeaker in the Forum. Antistius too was daily rising into reputation, --Piso pleaded pretty often, --Pomponius not so frequently, --Carbo veryseldom, --and Philippus only once or twice. In the mean while I pursued mystudies of every kind, day and night, with unremitting application. Ilodged and boarded at my own house [where he lately died] Diodotus theStoic; whom I employed as my preceptor in various other parts of learning, but particularly in Logic, which may be considered as a close andcontracted species of Eloquence; and without which, you yourself havedeclared it impossible to acquire that full and perfect Eloquence, whichthey suppose to be an open and dilated kind of Logic. Yet with all myattention to Diodotus, and the various arts he was master of, I neversuffered even a single day to escape me, without some exercise of theoratorial kind. I constantly declaimed in private with M. Piso, Q. Pompeius, or some other of my acquaintance; pretty often in Latin, butmuch oftener in Greek; because the Greek furnishes a greater variety ofornaments, and an opportunity of imitating and introducing them into theLatin; and because the Greek masters, who were far the best, could notcorrect and improve us, unless we declaimed in that language. This timewas distinguished by a violent struggle to restore the liberty of theRepublic:--the barbarous slaughter of the three Orators, Scaevola, Carbo, and Antistius;--the return of Cotta, Curio, Crassus, Pompey, and theLentuli;--the re-establishment of the laws and courts of judicature;--andthe intire restoration of the Commonwealth: but we lost Pomponius, Censorinus, and Murena, from the roll of Orators. 

"I now began, for the _first_ time, to undertake the management of causes, both private and public; not, as most did, with a view to learn myprofession, but to make a trial of the abilities which I had taken so muchpains to acquire. I had then a second opportunity of attending theinstructions of Molo; who came to Rome, while Sylla was Dictator, tosollicit the payment of what was due to his countrymen, for their servicesin the Mithridatic war. My defence of Sext. Roscius, which was the firstcause I pleaded, met with such a favourable reception, that, from thatmoment, I was looked upon as an advocate of the first class, and equal tothe greatest and most important causes: and after this I pleaded manyothers, which I pre-composed with all the care and accuracy I was masterof. 

"But as you seem desirous not so much to be acquainted with any incidentalmarks of my character, or the first sallies of my youth, as to know methoroughly, I shall mention some particulars, which otherwise might haveseemed unnecessary. At this time my body was exceedingly weak andemaciated; my neck long, and slender; a shape and habit, which I thoughtto be liable to great risk of life, if engaged in any violent fatigue, orlabour of the lungs. And it gave the greater alarm to those who had aregard for me, that I used to speak without any remission or variation, with the utmost stretch of my voice, and a total agitation of my body. When my friends, therefore, and physicians, advised me to meddle no morewith forensic causes, I resolved to run any hazard, rather than quit thehopes of glory, which I had proposed to myself from pleading: but when Iconsidered, that by managing my voice, and changing my way of speaking, Imight both avoid all future danger of that kind, and speak with greaterease, I took a resolution of travelling into Asia, merely for anopportunity to correct my manner of speaking. So that after I had been twoyears at the Bar, and acquired some reputation in the Forum, I left Rome. When I came to Athens, I spent six months with Antiochus, the principaland most judicious Philosopher of _the old Academy_; and under this ablemaster, I renewed those philosophical studies which I had laboriouslycultivated and improved from my earliest youth. At the same time, however, I continued my _rhetorical Exercises_ under Demetrius the Syrian, anexperienced and reputable master of the Art of Speaking. 

"After leaving Athens, I traversed every part of Asia, where I wasvoluntarily attended by the principal Orators of the country with whom Irenewed my rhetorical Exercises. The chief of them was Menippus ofStratonica, the most eloquent of all the Asiatics: and if to be neithertedious nor impertinent is the characteristic of an Attic Orator, he maybe justly ranked in that class. Dionysius also of Magnesia, Aeschilus ofCnidos, and Xenocles of Adramyttus, who were esteemed the firstRhetoricians of Asia, were continually with me. Not contented with these, I went to Rhodes, and applied myself again to Molo, whom I had heardbefore at Rome; and who was both an experienced pleader, and a finewriter, and particularly judicious in remarking the faults of hisscholars, as well as in his method of teaching and improving them. Hisprincipal trouble with me, was to restrain the luxuriancy of a juvenileimagination, always ready to overflow its banks, within its due and properchannel. Thus, after an excursion of two years, I returned to Italy, notonly much improved, but almost changed into a new man. The vehemence of myvoice and action was considerably abated; the excessive ardour of mylanguage was corrected; my lungs were strengthened; and my wholeconstitution confirmed and settled. 

"Two Orators then reigned in the Forum; (I mean Cotta and Hortensius)whose glory fired my emulation. Cotta's way of speaking was calm and easy, and distinguished by the flowing elegance and propriety of his language. The other was splendid, warm, and animated; not such as you, my Brutus, have seen him when he had shed the blossom of his eloquence, but far morelively and pathetic both in his style and action. As Hortensius, therefore, was nearer to me in age, and his manner more agreeable to thenatural ardour of my temper, I considered him as the proper object of mycompetition. For I observed that when they were both engaged in the samecause, (as for instance, when they defended M. Canuleius, and Cn. Dolabella, a man of consular dignity) though Cotta was generally employedto open the defence, the most important parts of it were left to themanagement of Hortensius. For a crowded audience, and a clamorous Forum, require an Orator who is lively, animated, full of action, and able toexert his voice to the highest pitch. The first year, therefore, after myreturn from Asia, I undertook several capital causes; and in the interim Iput up as a candidate for the Quaestorship, Cotta for the Consulate, andHortensius for the Aedileship. After I was chosen Quaestor, I passed ayear in Sicily, the province assigned to me by lot: Cotta went as Consulinto Gaul: and Hortensius, whose new office required his presence at Rome, was left of course the undisputed sovereign of the Forum. In thesucceeding year, when I returned from Sicily, my oratorial talents, suchas they were, displayed themselves in their full perfection and maturity. 

"I have been saying too much, perhaps, concerning myself: but my design init was not to make a parade of my eloquence and ability, which I have notemptation to do, but only to specify the pains and labour which I havetaken to improve it. After spending the five succeeding years in pleadinga variety of causes, and with the ablest Advocates of the time, I wasdeclared an Aedile, and undertook the patronage of the Sicilians againstHortensius, who was then one of the Consuls elect. But as the subject ofour conversation not only requires an historical detail of Orators, butsuch preceptive remarks as may be necessary to elucidate their characters;it will not be improper to make some observations of this kind upon thatof Hortensius. After his appointment to the consulship (very probably, because he saw none of consular dignity who were able to rival him, anddespised the competition of others of inferior rank) he began to remitthat intense application which he had hitherto persevered in from hischildhood; and having settled himself in very affluent circumstances, hechose to live for the future what he thought an _easy_ life, but which, intruth, was rather an indolent one. In the three succeeding years, thebeauty of his colouring was so much impaired, as to be very perceptible toa skilful connoisseur, though not to a common observer. After that, hegrew every day more unlike himself than before, not only in other parts ofEloquence, but by a gradual decay of the former celerity and eleganttexture of his language. I, at the same time, spared no pains to improveand enlarge my talents, such as they were, by every exercise that wasproper for the purpose, but particularly by that of writing. Not tomention several other advantages I derived from it, I shall only observe, that about this time, and but a very few years after my Aedileship, I wasdeclared the first Praetor, by the unanimous suffrages of my fellow-citizens. For, by my diligence and assiduity as a Pleader, and my accurateway of speaking, which was rather superior to the ordinary style of theBar, the novelty of my Eloquence had engaged the attention, and securedthe good wishes of the public. But I will say nothing of myself: I willconfine my discourse to our other Speakers, among whom there is not onewho has gained more than a common acquaintance with those parts ofliterature, which feed the springs of Eloquence:--not one who has beenthoroughly nurtured at the breast of Philosophy, which is the mother ofevery excellence either in deed or speech:--not one who has acquired anaccurate knowledge of the Civil Law, which is so necessary for themanagement even of private causes, and to direct the judgment of anOrator:--not one who is a complete master of the Roman History, whichwould enable us, on many occasions, to appeal to the venerable evidence ofthe dead:--not one who can entangle his opponent in such a neat andhumourous manner, as to relax the severity of the Judges into a smile oran open laugh:--not one who knows how to dilate and expand his subject, byreducing it from the limited considerations of time, and person, to somegeneral and indefinite topic;--not one who knows how to enliven it by anagreeable digression: not one who can rouse the indignation of the Judge, or extort from him the tear of compassion;--or who can influence and bendhis soul (which is confessedly the capital perfection of an Orator) insuch a manner as shall best suit his purpose. 

"When Hortensius, therefore, the once eloquent and admired Hortensius, hadalmost vanished from the Forum, my appointment to the Consulship, whichhappened about six years after his own promotion to that office, revivedhis dying emulation; for he was unwilling that after I had equalled him inrank and dignity, I should become his superior in any other respect. Butin the twelve succeeding years, by a mutual deference to each other'sabilities, we united our efforts at the Bar in the most amicable manner:and my Consulship, which at first had given a short alarm to his jealousy, afterward cemented our friendship, by the generous candor with which heapplauded my conduct. But our emulous efforts were exerted in the mostconspicuous manner, just before the commencement of that unhappy period, when Eloquence herself was confounded and terrified by the din of armsinto a sudden and a total silence: for after Pompey had proposed andcarried a law, which allowed even the party accused but three hours tomake his defence, I appeared, (though comparatively as a mere _noviciate_by this new regulation) in a number of causes which, in fact, were becomeperfectly the same, or very nearly so; most of which, my Brutus, you waspresent to hear, as having been my partner and fellow-advocate in many ofthem, though you pleaded several by yourself; and Hortensius, though hedied a short time afterwards, bore his share in these limited efforts. Hebegan to plead about ten years before the time of your birth; and in hissixty-fourth year, but a very few days before his death, he was engagedwith you in the defence of Appius, your father-in-law. As to ourrespective talents, the Orations we have published will enable posterityto form a proper judgment of them. But if we mean to inquire, whyHortensius was more admired for his Eloquence in the younger part of hislife, than in his latter years, we shall find it owing to the followingcauses. The first was, that an _Asiatic_ style is more allowable in ayoung man than in an old one. Of this there are two different kinds. 

"The former is sententious and sprightly, and abounds in those turns ofsentiment which are not so much distinguished by their weight and solidityas by their neatness and elegance; of this cast was Timaeus the Historian, and the two Orators so much talked of in our younger days, Hierocles theAlabandean, and his brother Menecles, but particularly the latter; bothwhose Orations may be reckoned master-pieces of the kind. The other sortis not so remarkable for the plenty and richness of its sentiments, as forits rapid volubility of expression, which at present is the ruling tastein Asia; but, besides it's uncommon fluency, it is recommended by a choiceof words which are peculiarly delicate and ornamental:--of this kind wereAeschylus the Cnidian, and my cotemporary Aeschines the Milesian; for theyhad an admirable command of language, with very little elegance ofsentiment. These showy kinds of eloquence are agreeable enough in youngpeople; but they are entirely destitute of that gravity and composurewhich befits a riper age. As Hortensius therefore excelled in both, he washeard with applause in the earlier part of his life. For he had all thatfertility and graceful variety of sentiment which distinguished thecharacter of Menecles: but, as in Menecles, so in him, there were manyturns of sentiment which were more delicate and entertaining than reallyuseful, or indeed sometimes convenient. His language also was brilliantand rapid, and yet perfectly neat and accurate; but by no means agreeableto men of riper years. I have often seen it received by Philippus with theutmost derision, and, upon some occasions, with a contemptuousindignation: but the younger part of the audience admired it, and thepopulace were highly pleased with it. In his youth, therefore, he met thewarmest approbation of the public, and maintained his post with ease asthe first Orator in the Forum. For the style he chose to speak in, thoughit has little weight, or authority, appeared very suitable to his age: andas it discovered in him the most visible marks of genius and application, and was recommended by the numerous cadence of his periods, he was heardwith universal applause. But when the honours he afterwards rose to, andthe dignity of his years required something more serious and composed, hestill continued to appear in the same character, though it no longerbecame him: and as he had, for some considerable time, intermitted thoseexercises, and relaxed that laborious attention which had oncedistinguished him, though his former neatness of expression, andluxuriancy of sentiment still remained, they were stripped of thosebrilliant ornaments they had been used to wear. For this reason, perhaps, my Brutus, he appeared less pleasing to you than he would have done, ifyou had been old enough to hear him, when he was fired with emulation andflourished in the full bloom of his Eloquence. 

"I am perfectly sensible, " said Brutus, "of the justice of your remarks;and yet I have always looked upon Hortensius as a great Orator, butespecially when he pleaded for Messala, in the time of your absence. "--"Ihave often heard of it, " replied I, "and his Oration, which was afterwardspublished, they say, in the very same words in which he delivered it, isno way inferior to the character you give it. Upon the whole, then, hisreputation flourished from the time of Crassus and Scaevola (reckoningfrom the Consulship of the former) to the Consulship of Paullus andMarcellus: and I held out in the same career of glory from theDictatorship of Sylla, to the period I have last, mentioned. Thus theEloquence of Hortensius was extinguished by his _own_ death, and mine bythat of the Commonwealth. "--"Ominate more favourably, I beg of you, "cried Brutus. --"As favourably as you please, " said I, "and that not somuch upon my own account, as your's. But _his_ death was truly fortunate, who did not live to behold the miseries, which he had long foreseen. Forwe often lamented, between ourselves, the misfortunes which hung over theState, when we discovered the seeds of a civil war in the insatiableambition of a few private Citizens, and saw every hope of an accommodationexcluded by the rashness and precipitancy of our public counsels. But thefelicity which always marked his life, seems to have exempted him, by aseasonable death, from the calamities that followed. But, as after thedecease of Hortensius, we seem to have been left, my Brutus, as the soleguardians of an _orphan_ Eloquence, let us cherish her, within our ownwalls at least, with a generous fidelity: let us discourage the addressesof her worthless, and impertinent suitors; let us preserve her pure andunblemished in all her virgin charms, and secure her, to the utmost of ourability, from the lawless violence of every armed ruffian. I must own, however, though I am heartily grieved that I entered so late upon the roadof life, as to be overtaken by a gloomy night of public distress, before Ihad finished my journey; that I am not a little relieved by the tenderconsolation which you administered to me in your very agreeable letters;--in which you tell me I ought to recollect my courage, since my pasttransactions are such as will speak for me when I am silent, and survivemy death, --and such as, if the Gods permit, will bear an ample testimonyto the prudence and integrity of my public counsels, by the finalrestoration of the Republic:--or, if otherwise, by burying me in theruins of my country. But when I look upon _you_, my Brutus, it fills mewith anguish to reflect that, in the vigour of your youth, and when youwas making the most rapid progress in the road to fame, your career wassuddenly stopped by the fatal overthrow of the Commonwealth. This unhappycircumstance has stung me to the heart; and not _me_ only; but my worthyfriend here, who has the same affection for you, and the same esteem foryour merit which I have. We have the warmest wishes for your happiness, and heartily pray that you may reap the rewards of your excellent virtues, and live to find a Republic in which you will be able, not only to revive, but even to add to the fame of your illustrious ancestors. For the Forumwas your birth-right, your native theatre of action; and you was the onlyperson that entered it, who had not only formed his Elocution by arigorous course of private practice, but enriched his Oratory with thefurniture of philosophical Science, and thus united the highest virtue tothe most consummate Eloquence. Your situation, therefore, wounds us withthe double anxiety, that _you_ are deprived of the _Republic_, and theRepublic of _you_. But still continue, my Brutus, (notwithstanding thecareer of your genius has been checked by the rude shock of our publicdistresses) continue to pursue your favourite studies, and endeavour (whatyou have almost, or rather intirely effected already) to distinguishyourself from the promiscuous crowd of Pleaders with which I have loadedthe little history I have been giving you. For it would ill befit you, (richly furnished as you are with those liberal Arts, which, unable toacquire at home, you imported from that celebrated city which has alwaysbeen revered as the seat of learning) to pass after all as an ordinaryPleader. For to what purposes have you studied under Pammenes, the mosteloquent man in Greece; or what advantage have you derived from thediscipline of _the old_ Academy, and it's hereditary master Aristus (myguest, and very intimate acquaintance) if you still rank yourself in thecommon class of Orators? Have we not seen that a whole age could scarcelyfurnish two Speakers who really excelled in their profession? Among acrowd of cotemporaries, Galba, for instance, was the only Orator ofdistinction: for old Cato (we are informed) was obliged to yield to hissuperior merit, as were likewise his two juniors Lepidus, and Carbo. But, in a public Harangue, the style of his successors the Gracchi was far moreeasy and lively: and yet, even in their time, the Roman Eloquence had notreached its perfection. Afterwards came Antonius, and Crassus; and thenCotta, Sulpicius, Hortensius, and--but I say no more: I can only add, thatif I had been so fortunate, &c, &c, "--[_Caetera defunt. _]

THE ORATOR, BY MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO;ADDRESSED TO MARCUS BRUTUS;And now first translated from the Original Latin. 

 "Song charms the Sense, but Eloquence the Soul. " MILTON. 

THE ORATOR. 

Which, my Brutus, would be the most difficult talk, --to decline answeringa request which you have so often repeated, or to gratify it to yoursatisfaction, --I have long been at a loss to determine. I should beextremely sorry to deny any thing to a friend for whom I have the warmestesteem, and who, I am sensible, has an equal affection for me;--especially, as he has only desired me to undertake a subject which mayjustly claim my attention. But to delineate a character, which it would bevery difficult, I will not say to _acquire_, but even to _comprehend_ inits full extent, I thought was too bold an undertaking for him who reveresthe censure of the wife and learned. For considering the great diversityof manner among the ablest Speakers, how exceedingly difficult must it beto determine which is best, and give a finished model of Eloquence? This, however, in compliance with your repeated solicitations, I shall nowattempt;--not so much from any hopes of succeeding, as from a stronginclination to make the trial. For I had rather, by yielding to yourwishes, give you room to complain of my insufficiency; than, by aperemptory denial, tempt you to question my friendship. 

You desire to know, then, (and you have often repeated your request) whatkind of Eloquence I most approve, and can look upon to be so highlyfinished, as to require no farther improvement. But should I be able toanswer your expectations, and display, in his full perfection, the Oratoryou enquire after; I am afraid I shall retard the industry of many, who, enfeebled by despair, will no longer attempt what they think themselvesincapable of attaining. It is but reasonable, however, that all those whocovet what is excellent, and which cannot be acquired without the greatestapplication, should exert their utmost. But if any one is deficient incapacity, and destitute of that admirable force of genius which Naturebestows upon her favourites, or has been denied the advantages of aliberal education, _let him make the progress he is able_. For while weare driving to overtake the foremost, it is no disgrace to be found amongthe _second_ class, or even the _third_. Thus, for instance, among thepoets, we respect the merit not only of a _Homer_ (that I may confinemyself to the Greeks) or of _Archilochus, Sophocles_, or _Pindar_, but ofmany others who occupied the second, or even a lower place. In Philosophyalso the diffusive majesty of Plato has not deterred _Aristotle_ fromentering the list; nor has _Aristotle_ himself, with all his wonderfulknowledge and fertility of thought, disheartened the endeavours of others. Nay, men of an elevated genius have not only disdained to be intimidatedfrom the pursuit of literary fame;--but the very artists and mechanicshave never relinquished their profession, because they were unable toequal the beauty of that _Iasylus_ which we have seen at Rhodes, or of thecelebrated _Venus_ in the island of _Coos_:--nor has the noble image ofOlympian _Jove_, or the famous statue of the Man at Arms, deterred othersfrom making trial of their abilities, and exerting their skill to theutmost. Accordingly, such a large number of them has appeared, and eachhas performed so well in his own way, that we cannot help being pleasedwith their productions, notwithstanding our admiration at the noblerefforts of the great masters of the chissel. 

But among the Orators, I mean those of Greece, it is astonishing how muchone of them has surpassed the rest:--and yet, though there was a_Demosthenes_, there were even _then_ many other Orators of considerablemerit;--and such there were before he made his appearance, nor have theybeen wanting since. There is, therefore, no reason why those who havedevoted themselves to the study of Eloquence, should suffer their hopes tolanguish, or their industry to flag. For, in the first place, even thatwhich is most excellent is not to be despaired of;--and, in all worthyattempts, that which is next to what is best is great and noble. 

But in sketching out the character of a compleat Orator, it is possible Imay exhibit such a one as hath never _yet_ existed. For I am not to pointout the _Speaker_, but to delineate the _Eloquence_ than which nothing canbe more perfect of the kind:--an Eloquence which hath blazed forth througha whole Harangue but seldom, and, it may be, never; but only here andthere like a transient gleam, though in some Orators more frequently, andin others, perhaps, more sparingly. 

My opinion, then, is, --that there is no human production of any kind, socompleatly beautiful, than which there is not a _something_ still morebeautiful, from which the other is copied like a portrait from real life, and which can be discerned neither by our eyes nor ears, nor any of ourbodily senses, but is visible only to thought and imagination. Though thestatues, therefore, of Phidias, and the other images above-mentioned, areall so wonderfully charming, that nothing can be found which is moreexcellent of the kind; we may still, however, _suppose_ a something whichis more exquisite, and more compleat. For it must not be thought that theingenious artist, when he was sketching out the form of a Jupiter, or aMinerva, borrowed the likeness from any particular object;--but a certainadmirable semblance of beauty was present to his mind, which he viewed anddwelt upon, and by which his skill and his hand were guided. As, therefore, in mere bodily shape and figure there is a kind of perfection, to whose ideal appearance every production which falls under the notice ofthe eye is referred by imitation; so the semblance of what is perfect inOratory may become visible to the mind, and the ear may labour to catch alikeness. These primary forms of thing are by Plato (the father of scienceand good language) called _Ideas_; and he tells us they have neitherbeginning nor end, but are co-eval with reason and intelligence; whileevery thing besides has a derived, and a transitory existence, and passesaway and decays, so as to cease in a short time to be the thing it was. Whatever, therefore, may be discussed by reason and method, should beconstantly reduced to the primary form or semblance of it's respectivegenus. 

I am sensible that this introduction, as being derived not from theprinciples of Eloquence, but from the deepest recesses of Philosophy, willexcite the censure, or at least the wonder of many, who will think it bothunfashionable and intricate. For they will either be at a loss to discoverit's connection with my subject, (though they will soon be convinced bywhat follows, that, if it appears to be far-fetched, it is not so withoutreason;)--or they will blame me, perhaps, for deserting the beaten track, and striking out into a new one. But I am satisfied that I often appear toadvance novelties, when I offer sentiments which are, indeed, of a muchearlier date, but happen to be generally unknown: and I franklyacknowledge that I came forth an Orator, (if indeed I am one, or whateverelse I may be deemed) not from the school of the Rhetoricians, but fromthe spacious walks of the Academy. For these are the theatres ofdiversified and extensive arguments which were first impressed with thefoot-steps of Plato; and his Dissertations, with those of otherPhilosophers, will be found of the greatest utility to an Orator, both forhis exercise and improvement; because all the fertility, and, as it were, the materials of Eloquence, are to be derived from thence;--but not, however, sufficiently prepared for the business of the Forum, which, asthemselves have frequently boasted, they abandoned to the _rustic Muses_of the vulgar! Thus the Eloquence of the Forum, despised and rejected bythe Philosophers, was bereaved of her greatest advantages:--but, nevertheless, being arrayed in all the brilliance of language andsentiment, she made a figure among the populace, nor feared the censure ofthe judicious few. By this means, the learned became destitute of apopular Eloquence, and the Orators of polite learning. 

We may, therefore, consider it as a capital maxim, (the truth of whichwill be more easily understood in the sequel) that the eloquent Speaker weare enquiring after, cannot be formed without the assistance ofPhilosophy. I do not mean that this alone is sufficient; but only (for itis sometimes necessary to compare great things to small) that it willcontribute to improve him in the same manner as the _Palaestra_ [Footnote:The _Palaestra_ was a place set apart for public exercises, such aswrestling, running, fencing, &c. The frequent performance of whichcontributed much to a graceful carriage of the body, which is a necessaryaccomplishment in a good Actor. ] does an Actor; because withoutPhilosophy, no man can speak fully and copiously upon a variety ofimportant subjects which come under the notice of an Orator. Accordingly, in the _Phaedrus_ of Plato, it is observed by Socrates that the great_Pericles_ excelled all the Speakers of his time, because he had been ahearer of _Anaxagoras_ the Naturalist, from whom he supposes that he notonly borrowed many excellent and sublime ideas, but a certain richness andfertility of language, and (what in Eloquence is of the utmostconsequence) the various arts either of soothing or alarming eachparticular passion. The same might be said of _Demosthenes_, whose letterswill satisfy us, how assiduously he attended the Lectures of Plato. Forwithout the instruction of Philosophy, we can neither discover what is the_Genus_ or the _Species_ to which any thing belongs, nor explain thenature of it by a just definition, or an accurate analysis of its parts;--nor can we distinguish between what is true and false, or foresee theconsequences, point out the inconsistencies, and dissolve the ambiguitieswhich may lie in the case before us. But as to Natural Philosophy (theknowledge of which will supply us with the richest treasures ofElocution;)--and as to life, and it's various duties, and the greatprinciples of morality, --what is it possible either to express orunderstand aright, without a large acquaintance with these? To suchvarious and important accomplishments we must add the innumerableornaments of language, which, at the time above mentioned, were the onlyweapons which the Masters of Rhetoric could furnish. This is the reasonwhy that genuine, and perfect Eloquence we are speaking of, has been yetattained by no one; because the Art of _Reasoning_ has been supposed to beone thing, and that of _Speaking_ another; and we have had recourse todifferent Instructors for the knowledge of things and words. 

Antonius, [Footnote: A celebrated Orator, and grandfather to M. AntoniusThe Triumvir. ] therefore, to whom our ancestors adjudged the palm ofEloquence, and who had much natural penetration and sagacity, has observedin the only book he published, "_that he had seen many good Speakers, butnot a single Orator_. " The full and perfect semblance of Eloquence had sothoroughly possessed his mind, and was so completely visible there, thoughno where exemplified in practice, that this consummate Genius, (for such, indeed, he was) observing many defects in both himself and others, coulddiscover no one who merited the name of _eloquent_. But if he consideredneither himself, nor Lucius Crassus, as a genuine Orator, he must haveformed in his mind a sublime idea of Eloquence, under which, because therewas nothing wanting to compleat it, he could not comprehend those Speakerswho were any ways deficient. Let us then, my Brutus, (if we are able)trace out the Orator whom Antonius never saw, and who, it may be, hasnever yet existed; for though we have not the skill to copy his likenessin real practice, (a talk which, in the opinion of the person above-mentioned, would be almost too arduous for one of the Gods, ) we may beable, perhaps, to give some account of what he _ought_ to be. 

Good Speaking, then, may be divided into three characters, in each ofwhich there are some who have made an eminent figure: but to be equallyexcellent in all (which is what we require) has been the happiness of few. 

The _lofty_ and _majestic_ Speaker, who distinguishes himself by theenergy of his sentiments, and the dignity of his expression, isimpetuous, --diversified, --copious, --and weighty, --and abundantly qualifiedto alarm and sway the passions;--which some effect by a harsh, and arough, gloomy way of speaking, without any harmony or measure; and others, by a smooth, a regular, and a well-proportioned style. 

On the other hand, the _simple_ and _easy_ Speaker is remarkably dexterousand keen, and aiming at nothing but our information, makes every thing hediscourses upon, rather clear and open than great and striking, andpolishes it with the utmost neatness and accuracy. But some of this kindof Speakers, who are distinguished by their peculiar artificie, aredesignedly unpolished, and appear rude and unskilful, that they may havethe better opportunity of deceiving us:--while others, with the samepoverty of style, are far more elegant and agreeable, --that is, they arepleasant and facetious, and sometimes even florid, with here and there aneasy ornament. 

But there is likewise a _middle_ kind of Oratory, between the two above-mentioned, which neither has the keenness of the latter, nor hurls thethunder of the former; but is a mixture of both, without excelling ineither, though at the same time it has something of each, or (perhaps, more properly) is equally destitute of the true merit of both. Thisspecies of Eloquence flows along in a uniform course, having nothing torecommend it, but it's peculiar smoothness and equability; though at thesame time, it intermingles a number of decorations, like the tufts offlowers in a garland, and embellishes a discourse from beginning to endwith the moderate and less striking ornaments of language and sentiment. 

Those who have attained to any degree of perfection in either of the abovecharacters, have been distinguished as eminent Orators: but the questionis whether any of them have compassed what we are seeking after, andsucceeded equally in all. For there have been several who could speaknervously and pompously, and yet, upon occasion, could express themselveswith the greates address, and simplicity. I wish I could refer to such anOrator, or at least to one who nearly resembles him, among the Romans; forit would certainly have been more to our credit to be able to refer toproper examples of our own, and not be necessitated to have recourse tothe Greeks. But though in another treatis of mine, which bears the name of_Brutus_, [Footnote: A very excellent Treatise in the form of a Dialogue. It contains a critical and very instructive account of all the notedOrators of _Greece_ and _Rome_ and might be called, with great propriety, _the History of Eloquence_. Though it is perhaps the most entertaining ofall Cicero's performances, the Public have never been obliged before witha translation of it into English; which, I hope, will sufficiently pleadmy excuse for preforming to undertake it. ] I have said much in favour ofthe Romans, partly to excite their emulation, and, in some measure, from apartial fondness for my country; yet I must always remember to give thepreference to _Demosthenes_, who alone has adapted his genius to thatperfect species of Eloquence of which I can readily form an idea, butwhich I have never yet seen exemplified in practice. Than _him_, there hasnever hitherto existed a more nervous, and at the same time, a more subtleSpeaker, or one more cool and temperate. I must, therefore, caution thosewhose ignorant discourse is become so common, and who wish to pass for_Attic_ Speakers, or at least to express themselves in the _Attic_ taste, --I must caution them to take _him_ for their pattern, than whom it isimpossible that Athens herself should be more completely Attic: and, as togenuine Atticism, that them learn what it means, and measure the force ofEloquence, not by their own weakness and incapacity, but by his wonderfulenergy and strength. For, at present, a person bestows his commendationupon just so much as he thinks himself capable of imitating. I thereforeflatter myself that it will not be foreign to my purpose, to instructthose who have a laudable emulation, but are not thoroughly settled intheir judgment, wherein the merit of an Attic Orator consists. 

The taste of the Audience, then, has always governed and directed theEloquence of the Speaker: for all who wish to be applauded, consult thecharacter, and the inclinations of those who hear them, and carefully formand accommodate themselves to their particular humours and dispositions. Thus in Caria, Phrygia, and Mysia, because the inhabitants have no relishfor true elegance and politeness, the Orators have adopted (as mostagreeable to the ears of their audience) a luxuriant, and, if I may soexpress myself, a corpulent style; which their neighbours the Rhodians, who are only parted from them by a narrow straight, have never approved, and much less the Greeks; but the Athenians have entirely banished it; fortheir taste has always been so just and accurate that they could notlisten to any thing but what was perfectly correct and elegant. An Orator, therefore, to compliment their delicacy, was forced to be always upon hisguard against a faulty or a distasteful expression. 

Accordingly, _he_, whom we have just mentioned as surpassing the rest, hasbeen careful in his Oration for Ctesiphon, (which is the best he evercomposed) to set out very cooly and modestly: when he proceeds to arguethe point of law, he grows more poignant and pressing; and as he advancesin his defence, he takes still greater liberties; till, at last, havingwarmed the passions of his Judges, he exults at his pleasure through thereamining part of his discourse. But even in _him_, thus carefullyweighing and poising his every word _Aeschines_ [Footnote: _Aeschines_ wasa cotemporary, and a professed rival of Demosthenes. He carried hisanimosity so far as to commence a litigious suit against him, at a timewhen the reputation of the latter was at the lowest ebb. But beingoverpowered by the Eloquence of Demosthenes, he was condemned to perpetualbanishment. ] could find several expressions to turn into ridicule:--forgiving a loose to his raillery, he calls them harsh, and detestable, andtoo shocking to be endured; and styling the author of them a very_monster_, he tauntingly asks him whether such expressions could beconsidered as _words_ or not rather as absolute _frights_ and _prodigies_. So that to AEschines not even _Demosthenes_ himself was perfectly _Attic_;for it is an easy matter to catch a _glowing_ expression, (if I may beallowed to call it so) and expose it to ridicule when the fire ofattention is extinguished. Demosthenes, therefore, when he endeavours toexcuse himself, condescends to jest, and denies that the fortune of Greecewas in the least affected by the singularity of a particular expression, or by his moving his hand either this way or that. 

With what patience, then, would a Mysian or a Phrygian have been heard atAthens, when even Demosthenes himself was reproached as a nuisance? Butshould the former have begun his whining sing-song, after the manner ofthe Asiatics, who would have endured it? or rather, who would not haveordered him to be instantly torn from the Rostrum? Those, therefore, whocan accommodate themselves to the nice and critical ears of an Athenianaudience, are the only persons who should pretend to Atticism. 

But though Atticism may be divided into several kinds, these mimicAthenians suspect but one. They imagine that to discourse plainly, andwithout any ornament, provided it be done correctly, and clearly, is theonly genuine Atticism. In confining it to this alone, they are certainlymistaken; though when they tell us that this is really Attic, they are sofar in the right. For if the only true Atticism is what they suppose tobe, not even _Pericles_ was an Attic Speaker, though he was universallyallowed to bear away the palm of Eloquence; nor, if he had wholly attachedhimself to this plain and simple kind of language, would he ever have beensaid by the Poet Aristophanes _to thunder and lighten, and throw allGreece into a ferment_. 

Be it allowed, then, that Lysias, that graceful and most polite ofSpeakers, was truly Attic: for who can deny it? But let it also beremembered that Lysias claims the merit of Atticism, not so much for hissimplicity and want of ornament, as because he has nothing which is eitherfaulty or impertinent. But to speak floridly, nervously, and copiously, this also is true Atticism:--otherwise, neither Aeschines nor evenDemosthenes himself were Attic Speakers. 

There are others who affect to be called _Thucydideans_, --a strange andnovel race of Triflers! For those who attach themselves to Lysias, have areal Pleader for their pattern;--not indeed a stately, and strikingPleader, but yet a dextrous and very elegant one, who might appear in theForum with reputation. 

Thucydides, on the contrary, is a mere Historian, who ('tis true)describes wars, and battles with great dignity and precision; but he cansupply us with nothing which is proper for the Forum. For his veryspeeches have so many obscure and intricate periods, that they arescarcely intelligible; which in a public discourse is the greatest faultof which an Orator can be guilty. But who, when the use of corn has beendiscovered, would be so mad as to feed upon acorns? Or could the Atheniansimprove their diet, and bodily food, and be incapable of cultivating theirlanguage? Or, lastly, which of the Greek Orators has copied the style ofThucydides? [Footnote: Demosthenes indeed took the pains to transcribe theHistory of Thucydides several times. But he did this, no so much to copythe _form_ as the energy of his language. ] "True, " they reply, "butThucydides was universally admired. " And so, indeed, he was; but only as asensible, an exact, and a grave Historian;--not for his address in publicdebates, but for his excellence in describing wars and battles. Accordingly, he was never mentioned as an Orator; nor would his name havebeen known to posterity, if he had not composed his History, notwithstanding the dignity of his birth, and the honourable share he heldin the Government. But none of these Pretenders have copied his energy;and yet when they have uttered a few mutilated and broken periods (whichthey might easily have done without a master to imitate) we must reverthem, truly, as so many genuine _Thucydideses_. I have likewise met with afew who were professed imitators of Xenophon; whose language, indeed, issweeter than honey, but totally unqualified to withstand the clamours ofthe Forum. 

Let us return then to the Orator we are seeking after, and furnish himwith those powers of Elocution, which Antonius could not discover in anyone: an arduous task, my Brutus, and full of difficulty:--yet nothing, Ibelieve, is impossible to him whose breast is fired with the generousflame of friendship! But I affectionately admire (and have always admired)your genius, your inclinations, and your manners. Nay, I am daily moreinflamed and ravished, not only with a desire (which, I assure you, is aviolent one) to renew our friendly intercourses, our social repasts, andyour improving conversation, but by the wonderful fame of your incrediblevirtues, which, though different in kind, are readily united by yoursuperior wisdom and good-sense. For what is so remote from severity ofmanners as gentleness and affability? and yet who more venerable thanyourself, or who more agreeable? What can be more difficult than to decidea number of suits, so as to be equally esteemed and beloved by the partieson both sides? You, however, possess the admirable talent of sending awayperfectly easy and contented even those against whom your are forced togive judgment: thus bringing it to bear that, while you do nothing from apartial favour to any man, whatever you do is favourably received. Henceit happens, that the only country upon earth, which is not involved in thepresent confusion, is the province of Gaul; where you are now enjoyingyourself in a happy tranquillity, while you are universally respected athome, and live in the hearts of the flower and strength of your fellow-citizens. It is equally amazing, though you are always engaged in the mostimportant offices of Government, that your studies are never intermitted;and that you are constantly either composing something of your own, orfinding employment for me! Accordingly I began this Essay, at yourrequest, as soon as I had finished my _Cato_; which last also I shouldnever have attempted (especially at a time when the enemies of virtue wereso numerous) if I had not considered it as a crime to disobey my friend, when he only urged me to revive the memory of a man whom I always lovedand honoured in his life-time. But I have now ventured upon a task whichyou have frequently pressed upon me, and I as often refused: for, ifpossible, I would share the fault between us, that if I should proveunequal to the subject, you may have the blame of loading me with a burdenwhich is beyond my strength, and I the censure of presuming to undertakeit:--though after all, the single merit of gratifying such a friend asBrutus, will sufficiently atone for any defects I may fall into. 

But in every accomplishment which may become the object of pursuit, it isexcessively difficult to delineate the form (or, as the Greeks call it, the _character_ [Footnote: [Greek: charachtaer]. ]) of what is _best_;because some suppose it to consist in one thing, and some in another. Thus, for instance, "I am for _Ennius_, " says one; "because he confineshimself to the style of conversation:"--"and I, " says another, "give thepreference to _Pacuvius_, because his verses are embellished and well-wrought; whereas Ennius is rather too "negligent. " In the same manner wemay suppose a third to be an admirer of Attius; for, as among the Greeks, so it happens with us, "_different men have different opinions_;"--nor isit easy to determine which is best. Thus also in painting, some arepleased with a rough, a wild, and a dark and cloudy style; while othersprefer that which is clear, and lively, and well covered with light. Howthen shall we strike out a general _rule_ or _model_, when there areseveral manners, and each of them has a certain perfection of its own? Butthis difficulty has not deterred me from the undertaking; nor have Ialtered my opinion that in all things there is a _something_ whichcomprehends the highest excellence of the kind, and which, though notgenerally discernible, is sufficiently conspicuous to him, who is skilledin the subject. 

"But as there are several kinds of Eloquence which differ considerablyfrom each other, and therefore cannot be reduced to one common form;--forthis reason, as to mere laudatory Orations, Essays, Histories, and suchsuasory performances as the Panegyric of Isocrates, and the speeches ofmany others who were called _Sophists_;--and, in short, as to every thingwhich is unconnected with the Forum, and the whole of that species ofdiscourse which the Greeks call the _demonstrative_ [Footnote: The_demonstrative_ species of Eloquence is that which was solely employedeither in _praising_ or _dispraising_. Besides this, there are twoothers, viz. The _deliberative_, and the _judicial_; the former wasemployed in political debates, where it's whole business was eitherto _persuade_ or _dissuade_; and the latter, in judicial suits andcontroversies, where the Speaker was either to _accuse_ or _defend_. But, on many occasions, they were all three intermingled in the samediscourse. ];--the form, or leading character of these I shall pass over;though I am far from considering it as a mere trifle, or a subject ofno consequence; on the contrary, we may regard it as the nurse andtutoress of the Orator we are now delineating. For _here_, a fluencyof expression is confessedly nourished and cultivated; and the easyconstruction, and harmonious cadence of our language is more openlyattended to. _Here_, likewise, we both allow and recommend a studiouselegance of diction, and a continued flow of melodious and well-turnedperiods;--and _here_, we may labour visibly, and without concealingour art, to contrast word to word, and to compare similar, and opposecontrary circumstances, and make several sentences (or parts of asentence) conclude alike, and terminate with the same cadence;--ornaments, which in real pleadings, are to be used more sparingly, andwith less appearance of art. Isocrates, therefore, confesses in his_Panathenaicus_, that these were beauties which he industriously pursued;for he composed it not for victory in a suit at law (where such aconfession must have greatly injured his cause) but merely to gratify theear. 

"It is recorded that the first persons who practised this species ofcomposition [Footnote: The _composition_ here mentioned consisted of threeparts, The _first_ regarded the structure; that is, the _connection_ ofour words, and required that the last syllable of every preceding, and thefirst of every succeeding word should be so aptly united as to produce anagreeable sound; which was effected by avoiding a collision of vowels orof inamicable consonants. It likewise required that those words should beconstantly made choice of, whose separate sounds were most harmonious andmost agreeable to the sense. The _second_ part consisted in the use ofparticular forms of expression, such as contrasts and antithesises, whichhave an appearance of order and regularity in their very texture. The_third_ and last regarded that species of harmony which results not somuch from the sound, as from the time and quantity of the severalsyllables in a sentence. This was called _number_, and sometimes _rhyme_;and was in fact a kind of _prosaic metre_, which was carefully attended toby the ancients in every part of a sentence, but more particularly at thebeginning and end of it. In this part they usually included the _period_, or the rules for determining the length of their sentences. I thought itnecessary to give this short account of their composition, because ourauthor very frequently alludes to it, before he proceeds to explain it atlarge. ] were _Thrasymachus_ the Chalcedonian, and _Gorgias_ the Leontine;and that these were followed by _Theodorus_ the Byzantine, and a number ofothers, whom Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, calls [Greek:logodaidalos] _Speech-wrights_; many of whole discourses are sufficientlyneat and entertaining; but, being the first attempts of the kind, were toominute and puerile, and had too poetical an air, and too much colouring. On this account, the merit of _Herodotus_, and _Thucydides_ is the moreconspicuous: for though they lived at the time we are speaking of, theycarefully avoided those studied decorations, or rather futilities. Theformer rolls along like a deep, still river without any rocks or shoals tointerrupt it's course; and the other describes wars and battles, as if hewas founding a charge on the trumpet; so that history (to use the wordsof _Theophrastus_) caught the first alarm from these, and began to expressherself with greater dignity and spirit. 

"After these came _Socrates_, whom I have always recommended as the mostaccomplished writer we have in the way I am speaking of; though sometimes, my Brutus, you have objected to it with a great deal of pleasantry anderudition. But when you are better informed for what it is I recommendhim, you will then think of him perhaps as favourably as I do. Thrasymachus and Gorgias (who are said to have been the first whocultivated the art of prosaic harmony) appeared to him to be too minutelyexact; and Thucydides, he thought, was as much too loose and rugged, andnot sufficiently smooth, and full-mouthed; and from hence he took the hintto give a scope to his sentences by a more copious and unconfined flow oflanguage, and to fill up their breaks and intervals with the softer andmore agreeable numbers. By teaching this to the most celebrated Speakers, and Composers of the age, his house came at last to be honoured as the_School of Eloquence_. Wherefore as I bore the censure of others withindifference, when I had the good fortune to be applauded by Cato; thusIsocrates, with the approbation of Plato, may slight the judgment ofinferior critics. For in the last page of the Phaedrus, we find _Socrates_thus expressing himself;--'Now, indeed, my dear Phaedrus, ' said he, 'Isocrates is but a youth: but I will discover to you what I think ofhim. '--'And what is that?' replied the other. --'He appears to me, ' saidthe Philosopher, 'to have too elevated a genius to be placed on a levelwith the arid speeches of Lysias. Besides, he has a stronger turn forvirtue; so that I shall not wonder, as he advances in years, if in thespecies of Eloquence to which he now applies himself, he should exceedall, who have hitherto pursued it, like so many infants. Or, if thisshould not content him, I shall not be astonished to behold him with agodlike ardour pursuing higher and more important studies; for I plainlysee that he has a natural bent to Philosophy!'"

Thus Socrates presaged of him when he was but a youth. But Plato recordedthis eulogium when he was older; and he recorded it, though he was one ofhis equals and cotemporaries, and a professed enemy to the whole tribe ofRhetoricians! _Him_ he admires, and _him_ alone! So that such who despiseIsocrates, must suffer me to err with Socrates and Plato. 

The manner of speaking, then, which is observed in the _demonstrative_ orornamental species of Eloquence, and which I have before remarked, waspeculiar to the Sophists, is sweet, harmonious, and flowing, full ofpointed sentiments, and arrayed in all the brilliance of language. But itis much fitter for the parade than the field; and being, therefore, consigned to the Palaestra, and the schools, has been long banished fromthe Forum. As Eloquence, however, after she had been fed and nourishedwith this, acquires a fresher complexion, and a firmer constitution; itwould not be amiss, I thought, to trace our Orator from his very _cradle_. 

But these things are only for shew and amusement: whereas it is ourbusiness to take the field in earnest, and prepare for action. As thereare three particulars, then, to be attended to by an Orator, --viz. _what_he is to say, in _what order_, and _how_; we shall consider what is mostexcellent in each; but after a different manner from what is followed indelivering a system of the Art. For we are not to furnish a set ofprecepts (this not being the province we have undertaken) but to exhibit aportrait of Eloquence in her full perfection: neither is it our businessto explain the methods by which we may acquire it, but only to shew whatopinion we ought to form of it. 

The two first articles are to be lightly touched over; for they have notso much a remarkable as a necessary share in forming the character of acompleat Orator, and are likewise common to _his_ with many otherprofessions;--and though, to invent, and judge with accuracy, what isproper to be said, are important accomplishments, and the same as the soulis to the body, yet they rather belong to _prudence_ than to Eloquence. Inwhat cause, however, can _prudence_ be idle? Our Orator, therefore, who isto be all perfection, should be thoroughly acquainted with the sources ofargument and proof. For as every thing which can become the subject ofdebate, must rest upon one or another of these particulars, viz. --whethera fact has been really committed, or what name it ought to bear in law, orwhether it is agreeable or contrary to justice; and as the reality of afact must be determined by force of evidence, the true name of it by it'sdefinition, and the quality of it by the received notions of right andwrong;--an Orator (not an ordinary one, but the finished Speaker we aredescribing) will always turn off the controversy, as much as possible, from particular persons and times, (for we may argue more at libertyconcerning general topics than about circumstances) in such a manner thatwhat is proved to be true _universally_, may necessarily appear to be soin all _subordinate_ cases. The point in debate being thus abstracted fromparticular persons and times, and brought to rest upon general principles, is called a _thesis_. In _this_ the famous Aristotle carefully practisedhis scholars;--not to argue with the formal precision of Philosophers, butto canvass a point handsomely and readily on both sides, and with all thecopiousness so much admired in the Rhetoricians: and for this purpose hedelivered a set of _common places_ (for so he calls them) which were toserve as so many marks or characters for the discovery of arguments, andfrom which a discourse might be aptly framed on either side of a question. 

Our Orator then, (for I am not speaking of a mere school-declaimer, or anoisy ranter in the Forum, but of a well-accomplished and a finishedSpeaker)--our Orator, as there is such a copious variety of common-places, will examine them all, and employ those which suit his purpose in asgeneral and indefinite a manner as his cause will permit, and carefullytrace and investigate them to their inmost sources. But he will use theplenty before him with discretion, and weighing every thing with theutmost accuracy, select what is best: for the stress of an argument doesnot always, and in every cause, depend upon similar topics. He will, therefore, exercise his judgment; and not only discover what _may_ besaid, but thoroughly examine the _force_ of it. For nothing is morefertile than the powers of genius, and especially those which have beenblessed with the cultivation of science. But as a rich and fruitful soilnot only produces corn in abundance, but also weeds to choak and smotherit; so from the common-places we are speaking of, many arguments willarise, which are either trivial, or foreign to our purpose, or entirelyuseless. An Orator, therefore, should carefully examine each, that he maybe able to select with propriety. Otherwise, how can he enlarge upon thosewhich are most pertinent, and dwell upon such as more particularly affecthis cause? Or how can he soften a harsh circumstance, or conceal, and (ifpossible) entirely suppress what would be deemed unanswerable, or stealoff the attention of the hearer to a different topic? Or how alledgeanother argument in reply, which shall be still more plausible than thatof his antagonist?

But after he has thus _invented_ what is proper to be said, with whataccuracy must he _methodize_ it? For this is the second of the threearticles above-mentioned. Accordingly, he will give the portal of hisHarangue a graceful appearance, and make the entrance to his cause as neatand splendid as the importance of it will permit. When he has thus madehimself master of the hearer's good wishes at the first onset, he willendeavour to invalidate what makes against him; and having, by this means, cleared his way, his strongest arguments will appear some of them in thefront, and others at the close of his discourse; and as to those of moretrifling consequence, he will occasionally introduce [Footnote: In theOriginal it is _inculcabit_, he will _tread them in_, (like the sand orloose dust in a new pavement) to support and strengthen the whole. ] themhere and there, where he judges them likely to be most serviceable. Thus, then, we have given a cursory view of what he ought to be, in the twofirst departments of Oratory. But, as we before observed, these, thoughvery important in their consequences, require less art and application. 

After he has thus invented what is proper to be said, and in what order, the greatest difficulty is still behind;--namely to consider _how_ he isto say it, and _in what manner_. For the observation of our favourite_Carneades_ is well-known, --"That _Clitomachus_ had a perpetual samenessof sentiment, and Charmidas a tiresome uniformity of expression. " But ifit is a circumstance of so much moment in Philosophy, _in what manner_ weexpress ourselves, where the matter, and not the language, is principallyregarded; what must we think of public debates, which are wholly ruled andswayed by the powers of Elocution? Accordingly, my Brutus, I am sensiblefrom your letters, that you mean to inquire what are my notions of afinished Speaker, not so much with respect to his Invention andDisposition, as to his talents of _Elocution_:--a severe task! and themost difficult you could have fixed upon! For as language is ever soft andyielding, and so amazingly pliable that you may bend and form it at yourpleasure; so different natures and dispositions have given rise todifferent kinds of Elocution. Some, for instance, who place the chiefmerit of it in it's rapidity, are mightily pleased with a torrent ofwords, and a volubility of expression. Others again are better pleasedwith regular, and measured intervals, and frequent stops, and pauses. Whatcan be more opposite? and yet both have their proper excellence. Some alsoconfine their attention to the smoothness and equability of their periods, and aim at a style which is perfectly neat and clear: while others affecta harshness, and severity of diction, and to give a gloomy cast to theirlanguage:--and as we have already observed that some endeavour to benervous and majestic, others neat and simple, and some to be smooth andflorid, it necessarily follows that there must be as many different kindsof Orators, as there are of Eloquence. But as I have already enlarged thetalk you have imposed upon me;--(for though your enquiries related only toElocution, I have ventured a few hints on the arts of Invention andDisposition;)--I shall now treat not only of _Elocution_, but of _action_. By this means, every part of Oratory will be attended to: for as to_memory_, which is common to this with many other arts, it is entirely outof the question. 

The Art of Speaking then, so far as it regards only the _manner_ in whichour thoughts should be expressed, consists in _action_ and _Elocution_;for action is the Eloquence of the body, and implies the proper managementof our _voice_ and _gesture_. As to the inflexions of the voice, they areas numerous as the various passions it is capable of exciting. Thefinished Orator, therefore, who is the subject of this Essay, in whatevermanner he would appear to be affected himself, and touch the heart of hishearer, will employ a suitable and corresponding tone of voice:--a topicwhich I could willingly enlarge upon, if delivering precepts was any partof my present design, or of your request. I should likewise have treatedconcerning _gesture_, of which the management of the countenance is amaterial part: for it is scarcely credible of what great importance it isto an Orator to recommend himself by these external accomplishments. Foreven those who were far from being masters of good language, have manytimes, by the sole dignity of their action, reaped the fruits ofEloquence; while others who had the finest powers of Elocution, have toooften, by the mere awkwardness of their delivery, led people to imaginethat they were scarcely able to express themselves:--so that Demosthenes, with sufficient reason, assigned the first place, and likewise the secondand third to _pronunciation_. For if Eloquence without this is nothing, but this, even without Eloquence, has such a wonderful efficacy, it mustbe allowed to bear the principal sway in the practice of Speaking. 

If an Orator, then, who is ambitious to win the palm of Eloquence, has anything to deliver which is warm and cutting, let his voice be strong andquick;--if what is calm and gentle, let it be mild and easy;--if what isgrave and sedate, let it be cool and settled;--and if what is mournful andaffecting, let his accents be plaintive and flexible. For the voice may beraised or depressed, and extended or contracted to an astonishing degree;thus in Music (for instance) it's three tones, the _mean_, the _acute_, and the _grave_, may be so managed by art, as to produce a pleasing and aninfinite variety of sounds. Nay, even in Speaking, there may be aconcealed kind of music:--not like the whining epilogue of a Phrygian or aCarian declaimer, but such as was intended by _Aeschines_, and_Demosthenes_, when the one upbraids and reproaches the other with theartificial modulations of his voice. _Demosthenes_, however, says mostupon this head, and often speaks of his accuser as having a sweet andclear pronunciation. There is another circumstance, which may fartherenforce our attention to the agreeable management of the voice; for Natureherself, as if she meant to harmonize the speech of man, has placed anaccent on every word, and one accent only, which never lies farther thanthe third syllable from the last. Why, therefore, should we hesitate tofollow her example, and to do our best to gratify the ear? A good voice, indeed, though a desirable accomplishment, is not in our power toacquire:--but to exercise, and improve it, is certainly in the power ofevery person. 

The Orator, then, who means to be the prince of his profession, willchange and vary his voice with the most delicate propriety; and bysometimes raising, and sometimes depressing it, pursue it graduallythrough all it's different tones, and modulations. He will likewiseregulate his _gesture_, so as to avoid even a single motion which iseither superfluous or impertinent. His posture will be erect and manly:--he will move from his ground but seldom, and not even then tooprecipitately; and his advances will be few and moderate. He will practiseno languishing, no effeminate airs of the head, no finical playing of thefingers, no measured movement of the joints. The chief part of his gesturewill consist in the firm and graceful sway of his body, and in extendinghis arm when his arguments are pressing, and drawing it again when hisvehemence abates. But as to the _countenance_, which next to the voice hasthe greatest efficacy, what dignity and gracefulness is it not capable ofsupporting! and when you have been careful that it may neither beunmeaning, nor ostentatious, there is still much to be left to theexpression of the _eyes_. For if the countenance is the _image_ of themind, the eyes are it's _interpreters_, whose degree of pleasantry orsadness must be proportioned to the importance of our subject. 

But we are to exhibit the portrait of a finished Orator, whose chiefexcellence must be supposed, from his very name, to consist in his_Elocution_; while his other qualifications (though equally complete) areless conspicuous. For a mere inventor, a mere digester, or a mere actor, are titles never made use of to comprize the whole character; but anOrator derives his name, both in Greek and Latin, from the single talentof Elocution. As to his other qualifications, every man of sense may claima share of them: but the full powers of language are exerted by himselfalone. Some of the philosophers, indeed, have expressed themselves in avery handsome manner: for _Theophrastus_ derived his name from thedivinity of his style; _Aristotle_ rivalled the glory of _Isocrates_; andthe Muses themselves are said to have spoken from the lips of _Xenophon_;and, to say no more, the great _Plato_ is acknowledged in majesty andsweetness to have far exceeded all who ever wrote or spoke. But theirlanguage has neither the nerves nor the sting which is required in theOrator's, when he harangues the crowded Forum. They speak only to thelearned, whose passions they rather choose to compose than disturb; andthey discourse about matters of calm and untumultuous speculation, merelyas teachers, and not like eager antagonists: though even _here_, when theyendeavour to amuse and delight us, they are thought by some to exceed thelimits of their province. It will be easy, therefore, to distinguish thisspecies of Elocution from the Eloquence we are attempting to delineate. For the language of philosophy is gentle and composed, and entirelycalculated for the shady walks of the Academy;--not armed with thoseforcible sentiments, and rapid turns of expression, which are suited tomove the populace, nor measured by exact numbers and regular periods, buteasy, free, and unconfined. It has nothing resentful belonging to it, nothing invidious, nothing fierce and flaming, nothing exaggerated, nothing marvellous, nothing artful and designing; but resembles a chaste, a bashful, and an unpolluted virgin. We may, therefore, consider it as akind of polite conversation, rather than a species of Oratory. 

As to the _Sophists_, whom I have already mentioned, the resemblance oughtto be more accurately distinguished: for they industriously pursue thesame flowers which are used by an Orator in the Forum. But they differ inthis, --that, as their principal aim is not to disturb the passions, butrather to allay them, and not so much to persuade as to please, --theyattempt the latter more openly, and more frequently than we do. They seekfor agreeable sentiments, rather than probable ones; they use morefrequent digressions, intermingle tales and fables, employ more shewymetaphors, and work them into their discourses with as much fancy andvariety as a painter does his colours; and they abound in contrasts andantitheses, and in similar and corresponding cadences. 

Nearly allied to these is _History_, which conducts her narratives withelegance and ease, and now and then sketches out a country, or a battle. She likewise diversifies her story with short speeches, and floridharangues: but in these, only neatness and fluency is to be expected, andnot the vehemence and poignant severity of an Orator [Footnote: In theOriginal it is, --_sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens expetitur, nan haeccontorta, et acris Oratorio_; upon which Dr. Ward has made the followingremark:--"Sentences, with respect to their form or composition, aredistinguished into two sorts, called by Cicero _tracta_, strait or direct, and _contorta_, bent or winding. By the former are meant such, whosemembers follow each other in a direct order, without any inflexion; and bythe latter, those which strictly speaking are called periods. "]. 

There is much the same difference between Eloquence and _Poetry_; for thePoets likewise have started the question, What it is which distinguishesthem from the Orators? It was formerly supposed to be their _number_ and_metre_: but numbers are now as familiar to the Orator, as to the Poet;for whatever falls under the regulation of the ear, though it bears noresemblance to verse (which in Oratory would be a capital fault) is called_number_, and by the Greeks _rhyme_. [Footnote: [Greek: Ruthmos]] In theopinion of some, therefore, the style of _Plato_ and _Democritus_, onaccount of it's majestic flow, and the splendor of it's ornaments, thoughit is far from being verse, has a nearer resemblance to poetry than thestyle of the Comedians, who, excepting their metre, have nothing differentfrom the style of conversation. Metre, however, is far from being theprincipal merit of the Poets; though it is certainly no smallrecommendation, that, while they pursue all the beauties of Eloquence, theharmony of their numbers is far more regular and exact. But, though thelanguage of Poetry is equally grand and ornamental with that of an Orator, she undoubtedly takes greater liberties both in making and compoundingword; and frequently administers to the pleasure of her hearers, more bythe pomp and lustre of her expressions, than by the weight and dignity ofher sentiments. Though judgment, therefore, and a proper choice of words, is alike common to both, yet their difference in other respects issufficiently discernible: but if it affords any matter of doubt (as tosome, perhaps, it may) the discussion of it is no way necessary to ourpresent purpose. 

We are, therefore, to delineate the Orator who differs equally from theEloquence of the Philosopher, the Sophist, the Historian, and the Poet. He, then, is truly eloquent, (for after _him_ we must search, by thedirection of Antonius) who in the Forum, and in public debates, can sospeak, as to _prove_, _delight_, and _force the passions_. To _prove_, isa matter of necessity:--to _delight_, is indispensably requisite to engagethe attention:--and to _force the passions_, is the surest means ofvictory; for this contributes more effectually than both the others to geta cause decided to our wishes. But as the duties of an Orator, so thekinds of Elocution are three. The neat and accurate is used in _proving;_the moderately florid in _delighting_ apd the vehement and impetuous in_forcing_ _the passions, _ in which alone all the power of Eloquenceconsists. Great, therefore, must be the judgment, and wonderful thetalents of the man, who can properly conduct, and, as it were, temper thisthreefold variety: for he will at once determine what is suitable to everycase; and be always able to express himself as the nature of his subjectmay require. 

Discretion, therefore, is the basis of Eloquence, as well as of everyother accomplishment. For, as in the conduct of life, so in the practiceof Speaking, nothing is more difficult than to maintain a propriety ofcharacter. This is called by the Greeks [Greek: to prepon], _thebecoming, _ but we shall call it _decorum;_--a subject which has beenexcellently and very copiously canvassed, and richly merits our attention. An unacquaintance with this has been the source of innumerable errors, notonly in the business of life, but in Poetry and Eloquence. An Orator, therefore, should examine what is becoming, as well in the turn of hislanguage, as in that of his sentiments. For not every condition, not everyrank, not every character, nor every age, or place, or time, nor everyhearer is to be treated with the same invariable train either of sentimentor expression:--but we should always consider in every part of a publicOration, as well as of life, what will be most becoming, --a circumstancewhich naturally depends on the nature of the subject, and the respectivecharacters of the Speaker and Hearer. Philosophers, therefore, havecarefully discussed this extensive and important topic in the doctrine ofEthics, (though not, indeed, when they treat of right and wrong, becausethose are invariably the fame:)--nor is it less attended to by the Criticsin their poetical Essays, or by men of Eloquence in every species andevery part of their public debates. For what would be more out ofcharacter, than to use a lofty style, and ransack every topic of argument, when we are speaking only of a petty trespass in some inferior court? Or, on the other hand, to descend to any puerile subtilties, and speak withthe indifference and simplicity of a frivolous narrative, when we arelashing treason and rebellion?

_Here_, the indecorum would arise from the very nature and quality of thesubject: but others are equally guilty of it, by not adapting theirdiscourse either to their own characters, or to that of their hearers, and, in some cafes, to that of their antagonists; and they extend thefault not only to their sentiments, but to the turn of their expression. It is true, indeed, that the force of language is a mere nothing, when itis not supported by a proper solidity of sentiment: but it is also equallytrue that the same thing will be either approved or rejected, according asit is this or that way expressed. In all cases, therefore, we cannot betoo careful in examining the _how far_? for though every thing has it'sproper mean, yet an _excess_ is always more offensive and disgusting thana proportionable _defect_. _Apelles_, therefore, justly censures some ofhis cotemporary artists, because they never knew when they had performedenough. 

This, my Brutus, as your long acquaintance with it must necessarily informyou, is a copious subject, and would require an extensive volume todiscuss. But it is sufficient to our present purpose to observe, that inall our words and actions, as well the smallest as the greatest, there isa something which will appear either becoming or unbecoming, and thatalmost every one is sensible of it's confluence. But what is becoming, andwhat _ought to be_, are very different considerations, and belong to adifferent topic:--for the _ought to be_ points out the perfection of duty, which should be attended to upon all occasions, and by all persons: butthe _becoming_ denotes that which is merely _proper_, and suited to timeand character, which is of great importance not only in our actions andlanguage, but in our very looks, our gesture, and our walk; and that whichis contrary to it will always be _unbecoming_, and disagreeable. If thePoet, therefore, carefully guards against any impropriety of the kind, andis always condemned as guilty of a fault, when he puts the language of aworthy man into the mouth of a ruffian, or that of a wife man into themouth of a fool:--if, moreover, the artist who painted the sacrifice of_Iphigenia_, [Footnote: Agamemnon, one of the Grecian chiefs, having byaccident slain a deer belonging to Diana, the Goddess was so enraged atthis profanation of her honours, that she kept him wind-bound at Auliswith the whole fleet. Under this heavy disaster, having recourse to theOracle, (their usual refuge in such cases) they were informed that theonly atonement which the angry Goddess would accept, was the sacrifice ofone of the offender's children. Ulysses having, by a stratagem, withdrawn_Iphigenia_ from her mother for that purpose, the unhappy Virgin wasbrought to the altar. But, as the story goes, the Goddess relenting at herhard fate, substituted a deer in her stead, and conveyed her away to serveher as a Priestess. It must be farther remarked that _Menelaus_ was theVirgin's uncle, and Calchas the Priest who was to officiate at this horridsacrifice. ] could see that _Chalcas_ should appear greatly concerned, _Ulysses_ still more so, and _Menelaus_ bathed in tears, but that the headof Agamemnon (the virgin's father) should be covered with his robe, tointimate a degree of anguish which no pencil could express: lastly, if amere actor on the stage is ever cautious to keep up the character heappears in, what must be done by the Orator? But as this is a matter ofsuch importance, let him consider at his leisure, what is proper to bedone in particular causes, and in their several parts and divisions:--forit is sufficiently evident, not only that the different parts of anOration, but that entire causes ought to be managed, some in one manner, and some in another. 

We must now proceed to delineate the form and character of each of thethree species of Eloquence above-mentioned; a great and an arduous talk, as I have already observed more than once; But we should have consideredthe difficulty of the voyage before we embarked: for now we have venturedto set sail, we must run boldly before the wind, whether we reach our portor not. 

The first character, then, to be described, is the Orator who, accordingto some, is the only one that has any just pretensions to _Atticism_. Heis distinguished by his modest simplicity; and as he imitates the languageof conversation, he differs from those who are strangers to Eloquence, rather in reality than in appearance. For this reason, those who hear him, though totally unskilled in the art of Speaking, are apt to persuadethemselves that they can readily discourse in the same manner [Footnote:There is a pretty remark to the same purpose in the fifteenth number of_The Guardian_, which, as it may serve to illustrate the observation ofCicero, I shall beg leave to insert. 

"From what I have advanced, it appears how difficult it is to write_easily_. But when easy writings fall into the hands of an ordinaryreader, they appear to him so natural and unlaboured, that he immediatelyresolves to write, and fancies that all he has to do is to take no pains. Thus he thinks indeed simply, but the thoughts not being chosen withjudgment, are not beautiful. He, it is true, expresses himself plainly, but flatly withal. Again, if a man of vivacity takes it into his head towrite this way, what self-denial must he undergo, when bright points ofwit occur to his fancy? How difficult will he find it to reject floridphrases, and pretty embellishments of style? So true it is, thatsimplicity of all things is the hardest to be copied, and case to beacquired with the greatest labour. "];--and the unaffected simplicity ofhis language appears very imitable to an ignorant observer; though nothingwill be found less so by him who makes the trial. For, if I may so expressmyself, though his veins are not over-stocked with blood, his juices mustbe found and good; and though he is not possessed of any extraordinarystrength, he must have a healthy constitution. For this purpose, we mustfirst release him from the shackles of _number_; for there is (you know) akind of _number_ to be observed by an Orator, which we shall treat of inthe sequel:--but this is to be used in a different species of Eloquence, and to be relinquished in the present. His language, therefore, must befree and unconfined, but not loose and irregular, that he may appear towalk at ease, without reeling or tottering. He will not be at the pains tocement word to word with a scrupulous exactness: for those breaks whichare made by a collision of vowels, have now and then an agreeable effect, and betray the not unpleasing negligence of a man who is more felicitousabout things than words. But though he is not to labour at a measuredflow, and a masterly arrangement of his words, he must be careful in otherrespects. For even these limited and unaspiring talents are not to beemployed carelessly, but with a kind of industrious negligence: for assome females are most becoming in a dishabille, so this artless kind ofEloquence has her charms, though she appears in an undress. There issomething in both which renders them agreeable, without striking the eye. Here, therefore, all the glitter of ornament, like that of jewels anddiamonds, must be laid aside; nor must we apply even the crisping-iron toadjust the hair. There must be no colouring, no artful washes to heightenthe complexion: but elegance and neatness must be our only aim. Our stylemuft be pure, and correct;--we must speak with clearness and perspicuity;--and be always attentive to appear in character. There is one thing, however, which must never be omitted, and which is reckoned byTheophrastus to be one of the chief beauties of composition;--I mean thatsweet and flowing ornament, a plentiful intermixture of lively sentiments, which seem to result from a natural fund of good sense, and are peculiarlygraceful in the Orator we are now describing. But he will be very moderatein using the _furniture_ of Eloquence: for (if I may be allowed such anexpression) there is a species of furniture belonging to us, whichconsists in the various ornaments of sentiment and language. The ornamentsof language are two-fold; the one sort relates to words as they standsingly, and the other as they are connected together. A _single_ word (Ispeak of those which are _proper_, and in common use) is then said to bewell chosen, when it founds agreeably, and is the best which could havebeen taken to express our meaning. Among borrowed and _translatitious_[Footnote: Words which are transferred from their primitive meaning to ametaphorical one. ] words, (or those which are not used in their propersense) we may reckon the metaphor, the metonymy, and the rest of thetropes; as also compounded and new-made words, and such as are obsoleteand out of date; but obsolete words should rather be considered as properones, with this only difference, that we seldom make use of them. As towords in connection, these also may be considered as ornamental, when theyhave a certain gracefulness which would be destroyed by changing theirorder, though the meaning would still remain the same. For as to theornaments of sentiment, which lose nothing of their beauty, by varying theposition of the words, --these, indeed, are very numerous, though only afew of them are remarkably striking. 

The Orator, then, who is distinguished by the simplicity of his manner, provided he is correct and elegant, will be sparing in the use of newwords; easy and modest in his metaphors; and very cautious in the use ofwords which are antiquated;--and as to the other ornaments of language andsentiment, here also he will be equally plain and reserved. But in the useof metaphors, he will, perhaps, take greater liberties; because these arefrequently introduced in conversation, not only by Gentlemen, but even byrustics, and peasants: for we often hear them say that the vine _shootsout_ it's buds, that the fields are _thirsty_, the corn _lively_, and thegrain _rich_ and flourishing. Such expressions, indeed, are rather bold:but the resemblance between the metaphor and the object is eitherremarkably obvious; or else, when the latter has no proper name to expressit, the metaphor is so far from appearing to be laboured, that we seem touse it merely to explain our meaning. This, therefore, is an ornament inwhich our artless Orator may indulge himself more freely; but not soopenly as in the more diffusive and lofty species of Eloquence. For that_indecorum_, which is best understood by comparing it with its oppositequality, will even here be viable when a metaphor is too conspicuous;--orwhen this simple and dispassionate sort of language is interrupted by abold ornament, which would have been proper enough in a different kind ofElocution. 

As to that sort of ornament which regards the position of words, andembellishes it with those studied graces, which are considered by theGreeks as so many _attitudes_ of language, and are therefore called_figures_, (a name which is likewise extended to the flowers ofsentiment;)--the Orator before us, who may justly be regarded as an_Attic_ Speaker, provided the title is not confined to him, will make useeven of _this_, though with great caution and moderation. He will conducthimself as if he was setting out an entertainment, and while he carefullyavoids a splendid magnificence, he will not only be plain and frugal, butneat and elegant, and make his choice accordingly. For there is a kind ofgenteel parsimony, by which his character is distinguished from that ofothers. He will, therefore, avoid the more conspicuous ornaments above-mentioned, such as the contracting word to word, --the concluding theseveral members of a sentence with the same cadence, or confining them tothe same measure, --and all the studied prettiness which are formed by thechange of a letter, or an artful play of found;--that, if possible, theremay not be the slightest appearance, or even suspicion, of a design toplease. As to those repetitions which require an earnest and forcibleexertion of the voice, these also would be equally out of character inthis lower species of Eloquence; but he may use the other ornaments ofElocution at his pleasure, provided he checks and interrupts the flow ofhis language, and softens it off by using familiar expressions, and suchmetaphors as are plain and obvious. Nay, even as to the figures ofsentiment, he may sometimes indulge himself in those which are notremarkably bold and striking. Thus, for instance, we must not allow him tointroduce the Republic as speaking, nor to fetch up the dead from theirgraves, nor to crowd a multitude of ideas into the same period. Theseefforts demand a firmer constitution, and should be neither required norexpected from the simple Orator before us; for as in his voice, solikewise in his language, he should be ever easy and composed. But thereare many of the nobler ornaments which may be admitted even here, thoughalways in a plainer and more artless habit than in any other species ofEloquence; for such is the character we have assigned him. His gesturealso will be neither pompous, nor theatrical, but consist in a moderateand easy sway of the body, and derive much of it's efficacy from thecountenance, --not a stiff and affected countenance, but such a one ashandsomely corresponds with his sentiments. 

This kind of Oratory will likewise be frequently enlivened by those turnsof wit and pleasantry, which in Speaking have a much greater effect thanis imagined. There are two sorts of them; the one consisting in smartsayings and quick repartees, and the other in what is called _humour_. OurOrator will make use of both;--of the latter in his narratives, to makethem lively and entertaining;--and of the other, either in giving orretorting a stroke of ridicule, of which there are several kinds; but atpresent it is not our business to specify them. It will not be amiss, however, to observe by way of caution, that the powers of _ridicule_ arenot to be employed too often, lest we sink into scurrility;--nor in looseand indecent language, lest we degenerate into wantonness and buffoonery;--nor with the least degree of petulance and abuse, lest we appearaudacious and ill-bred;--nor levelled against the unfortunate, lest weincur the censure of inhumanity;--nor against atrocious crimes, lest weraise a laugh where we ought to excite abhorrence;--nor, in the lastplace, should they be used unseasonably, or when the characters either ofthe Speaker, or the Hearer, and the circumstances of time and place forbidit;--otherwise we should grossly fail in that decorum of which we havealready said so much. We should likewise avoid all affected witticisms, which appear not to be thrown out occasionally, but to be dragged from thecloset; for such are generally cold and insipid. It is also improper tojest upon our friends, or upon persons of quality, or to give any strokesof wit which may appear ill-natured, or malicious. We should aim only atour enemies; and even at these, not upon every occasion, or without anydistinction of character, or with the same invariable turn of ridicule. Under these restrictions our artless Orator will play off his wit andhumour, as I have never seen it done by any of the modern pretenders toAtticism, though they cannot deny that this is entirely in the Attictaste. 

Such, then, is the idea which I have formed of a _simple and an easySpeaker_, who is likewise a very masterly one, and a genuine Athenian; forwhatever is smart and pertinent is unquestionably _Attic_, though some ofthe Attic Speakers were not remarkable for their wit. _Lysias_, indeed, and _Hyperides_ were sufficiently so; and _Demades_, it is said, was moreso than all the others. Demosthenes, however, is thought by many to havebut little merit of the kind; but to me nothing can be more genteel thanhe is; though, perhaps, he was rather smart than humourous. The onerequires a quicker genius, but the other more art and address. 

But there is a second character, which is more diffusive, and somewhatstronger than the simple and artless, one we have been describing, --thoughconsiderably inferior to that copious and all-commanding Eloquence weshall notice in the sequel. In this, though there is but a moderateexertion of the nerves and sinews of Oratory, there is abundance of melodyand sweetness. It is much fuller and richer than the close and accuratestyle above-mentioned; but less elevated than the pompous and diffusive. In _this_ all the ornaments of language may be employed without reserve;and _here_ the flow of our numbers is ever soft and harmonious. Many ofthe Greeks have pursued it with success: but, in my opinion, they must allyield the palm to _Demetrius Phalereus_, whose Eloquence is ever mild andplacid, and bespangled with a most elegant variety of metaphors and othertropes, like so many _stars_. By _metaphors_, as I have frequentlyobserved, I mean expressions which, either for the sake of ornament, orthrough the natural poverty of our language, are removed and as it were_transplanted_ from their proper objects to others, by way of similitude. As to _tropes_ in general, they are particular forms of expression, inwhich the proper name of a thing is supplied by another, which conveys thesame meaning, but is borrowed from its adjuncts or effects: for, though, in this case, there is a kind of metaphor, (because the word is shiftedfrom its primary object) yet the remove is performed by _Ennius_ in adifferent manner, when he says metaphorically, --"_You bereave the citadeland the city of their offspring_, "--from what it would have been, if hehad put the citadel alone for the whole state: and thus again, when hetells us that, --"_rugged Africa was shaken by a dreadful tumult_, "--heputs Africa for the inhabitants. The Rhetoricians call this an_Hypallage_, because one word is substituted for another: but theGrammarians call it a _Metonymy_, because the words are shifted andinterchanged. Aristotle, however, subjoins it to the metaphor, as helikewise does the _Abuse_ or _Catachresis_; by which, for instance, we saya _narrow, contracted soul_, instead of a _mean_ one, and thus steal anexpression which has a kindred meaning with the proper one, either for thesake of ornament or decency. When several metaphors are connected togetherin a regular chain, the form of speaking is varied. The Greeks call thisan _Allegory_, which indeed is proper enough if we only attend to theetymology; but if we mean to refer it to its particular _genus_ or kind, he has done better who comprehends the whole under the general name ofmetaphors. These, however, are frequently used by _Phalereus_, and have asoft and pleasing effect: but though he abounds in the metaphor, he alsomakes use of the other tropes with as much freedom as any writer whatever. 

This species of Eloquence (I mean the _middling_, or temperate) islikewise embellished with all the brilliant figures of language, and manyof the figures of sentiment. By this, moreover, the most extensive andrefined topics of science are handsomely unfolded, and all the weapons ofargument are employed without violence. But what need have I to say more?Such Speakers are the common offspring of Philosophy; and were thenervous, and more striking Orator to keep out of sight, these alone wouldfully answer our wishes. For they are masters of a brilliant, a florid, apicturesque, and a well-wrought Elocution, which is interwoven with allthe beautiful embroidery both of language and sentiment. This characterfirst streamed from the limpid fountains of the _Sophists_ into the Forum;but being afterwards despised by the more simple and refined kind ofSpeakers, and disdainfully rejected by the nervous and weighty; it wascompelled to subside into the peaceful and unaspiring mediocrity we arespeaking of. 

The _third character_ is the extensive, --the copious, --the nervous, --themajestic Orator, who possesses the powers of Elocution in their fullextent. _This_ is the man whose enchanting and diffusive language is somuch admired by listening nations, that they have tamely sufferedEloquence to rule the world;--but an Eloquence whose course is rapid andsonorous!--an Eloquence which every one gazes at, and admires, anddespairs to equal! This is the Eloquence that bends and sways thepassions!--_this_ the Eloquence that alarms or sooths them at herpleasure! This is the Eloquence that sometimes tears up all before it likea whirlwind; and, at other times, steals imperceptibly upon the senses, and probes to the bottom of the heart!--the Eloquence which ingraftsopinions that are new, and eradicates the old; but yet is widely differentfrom the two characters of Speaking before-mentioned. 

He who exerts himself in the simple and accurate character, and speaksneatly and smartly without aiming any higher!--_he_, by this alone, ifcarried to perfection, becomes a great, if not the greatest of Orators;nor does he walk upon slippery ground, so that if he has but learned totread firm, he is in no danger of falling. Also the middle kind of Orator, who is distinguished by his equability, provided he only draws up hisforces to advantage, fears not the perilous and doubtful hazards of apublic Harangue; and, though sometimes he may not succeed to his wishes, yet he is never exposed to an absolute defeat; for as he never soars, hisfall must be inconsiderable. But the Orator, whom we regard as the princeof his profession, --the nervous, --the fierce, --the flaming Orator, if heis born for this alone, and only practices and applies himself to this, without tempering his copiousness with the two inferior characters ofEloquence, is of all others the most contemptible. For the plain andsimple Orator, as speaking acutely and expertly, has an appearance ofwisdom and good-sense; and the middle kind of Orator is sufficientlyrecommended by his sweetness:--but the copious and diffusive Speaker, ifhe has no other qualification, will scarcely appear to be in his senses. For he who can say nothing calmly, --nothing gently--nothing methodically, --nothing clearly, distinctly, or humourously, (though a number of causesshould be so managed throughout, and others in one or more of theirparts:)--he, moreover, who proceeds to amplify and exaggerate withoutpreparing the attention of his audience, will appear to rave before men ofunderstanding, and to vapour like a person intoxicated before the soberand sedate. 

Thus then, my Brutus, we have at last discovered the finished Orator weare seeking for: but we have caught him in imagination only;--for if Icould have seized him with my hands, not all his Eloquence should persuademe to release him. We have at length, however, discovered the eloquentSpeaker, whom Antonius never saw. --But who, then, is he?--I will comprizehis character in a few words, and afterwards unfold it more at large. --He, then, is an Orator indeed! who can speak upon trivial subjects withsimplicity and art, upon weighty ones with energy and pathos, and uponthose of middling import with calmness and moderation. You will tell me, perhaps, that such a Speaker has never existed. Be it so:--for I am nowdiscoursing not upon what I _have_ seen, but upon what I could _wish_ tosee; and must therefore recur to that primary semblance or ideal form ofPlato which I have mentioned before, and which, though it cannot be seenwith our bodily eyes, may be comprehended by the powers of imagination. For I am not seeking after a living Orator, or after any thing which ismortal and perishing, but after that which confers a right to the title of_eloquent_; in other words, I am seeking after Eloquence herself, who canbe discerned only by the eye of the mind. 

He then is truly an _Orator_, (I again repeat it, ) who can speak upontrivial subjects with simplicity, upon indifferent ones with moderation, and upon weighty subjects with energy and pathos. [Footnote: Our Author isnow going to indulge himself in the _Egotism_, --a figure, which, upon manyoccasions, he uses as freely as any of the figures of Rhetoric. How theReader will relish it, I know not; but it is evident from what follows, and from another passage of the same kind further on, that Cicero had asgreat a veneration for his own talents as any man living. His merit, however, was so uncommon both as a Statesman, a Philosopher, and anOrator, and he has obliged posterity with so many useful and amazingproductions of genius, that we ought in gratitude to forgive the vanity ofthe _man_. Although he has ornamented the socket in which he has _set_ hischaracter, with an extravagant (and I had almost said ridiculous)profusion of self-applause, it must be remembered that the diamond itcontains is a gem of inestimable value. ] The cause I pleaded for Caecinarelated entirely to the bare letter of the Interdict: here, therefore, Iexplained what was intricate by a definition, --spoke in praise of theCivil Law, --and dissolved the ambiguities which embarrassed the meaning ofthe Statute. --In recommending the Manilian Law, I was to blazon thecharacter of _Pompey_, and therefore indulged myself in all that varietyof ornament which is peculiar to the second species of Eloquence. In thecause of Rabirius, as the honour of the Republic was at stake, I blazedforth in every species of amplification. But these characters aresometimes to be intermingled and diversified. Which of them, therefore, isnot to be met with in my seven Invectives against _Verres_? or in thecause of _Habitus_? or in that of _Cornelius_? or indeed in most of myDefences? I would have specified the particular examples, did I notbelieve them to be sufficiently known; or, at least, very easy to bediscovered by those who will take the trouble to seek for them. For thereis nothing which can recommend an Orator in the different characters ofspeaking, but what has been exemplified in my Orations, --if not toperfection, yet at least it has been attempted, and faintly delineated. Ihave not, indeed, the vanity to think I have arrived at the summit; but Ican easily discern what Eloquence ought to be. For I am not to speak ofmyself, but to attend to my subject; and so far am I from admiring my ownproductions, that, on the contrary, I am so nice and difficult, as not tobe entirely satisfied with Demosthenes himself, who, though he rises withsuperior eminence in every species of Eloquence, does not always fill myear;--so eager is it, and so insatiable, as to be ever coveting what isboundless and immense. But as, by the assistance of _Pammenes_, who isvery fond of that Orator, you made yourself thoroughly acquainted with himwhen you was at _Athens_, and to this day scarcely ever part with him fromyour hands, and yet frequently condescend to peruse what has been writtenby _me_; you must certainly have taken notice that he hath _done_ much, and that I have _attempted_ much, --that he has been _happy_ enough, and I_willing_ enough to speak, upon every occasion, as the nature of thesubject required. But he, beyond dispute, was a consummate Orator; for henot only succeeded several eminent Speakers, but had many such for hiscotemporaries:--and I also, if I could have reached the perfection I aimedat, should have made no despicable figure in a city, where (according toAntonius) the voice of genuine Eloquence was never heard. 

But if to Antonius neither Crassus, nor even himself, appeared to be_eloquent_, we may presume that neither Cotta, Sulpicius, nor Hortensiuswould have succeeded any better. For _Cotta_ had no expansion, _Sulpicius_no temper, and _Hortensius_ too little dignity. But the two former (I meanCrassus and Antonius) had a capacity which was better adapted to everyspecies of Oratory. I had, therefore, to address myself to the ears of acity which had never been filled by that multifarious and extensiveEloquence we are discoursing of; and I first allured them (let me havebeen what you please, or what ever were my talents) to an incredibledesire of hearing the finished Speaker who is the subject of the presentEssay. For with what acclamations did I deliver that passage in my youthconcerning the punishment of parricides [Footnote: Those unnatural andinfamous wretches, among the Romans, were sown into a leathern sack, andthus thrown into the sea; to intimate that they were unworthy of havingthe lead communication with the common elements of water, earth, andair. ], though I was afterwards sensible it was too warm and extravagant?--"What is so common, said I, as air to the living, earth to the dead, thesea to floating corpses, and the shore to those who are caft upon it bythe waves! But these wretches, as long as life remains, so live as not tobreathe the air of heaven;--they so perish, that their limbs are notsuffered to touch the earth;--they are so tossed to and fro' by the waves, as never to be warned by them;--and when they are cast on the shore, theirdead, carcases cannot rest upon the surface of the rocks!" All this, ascoming from a youth, was much applauded, not for it's ripeness andsolidity, but for the hopes it gave the Public of my future improvement. From the same capacity came those riper expressions, --"She was the spouseof her son-in-law, the step-mother of her own offspring? and the mistressof her daughter's husband [Footnote: This passage occurs in the perorationof his Defence of Cluentius]. "

But I did not always indulge myself in this excessive ardour ofexpression, or speak every thing in the same manner: for even thatyouthful redundance which was so visible in the defence of _Roscius_, hadmany passages which were plain and simple, and some which were, tolerablyhumourous. But the Orations in defence of _Habitus_, and _Cornelius_, andindeed many others; (for no single Orator, even among the peaceful andspeculative Athenians, has composed such a number as I have;)--these, Isay, have all that variety which I so much approve. For have _Homer_ and_Ennius_, and the rest of the Poets, but especially the tragic writers, not expressed themselves at all times with the same elevation, butfrequently varied their manner, and sometimes lowered it to the style ofconversation; and shall I oblige myself never to descend from that highestenergy of language? Bit why do I mention the Poets whose talents aredivine! The very actors on the stage, who have most excelled in theirprofession, have not only succeeded in very different characters, thoughstill in the same province; but a comedian has often acted tragedies, anda tragedian comedies so as to give us universal satisfaction. Wherefore, then, should not _I_ also exert my efforts? But when I say _myself_, myworthy Brutus I mean _you_: for as to _me_, I have already done all, I wascapable of doing. Would _you_, then, plead every cause in the same manner?Or is there any sort of causes which your genius would decline? Or even inthe same cause, would you always express yourself in the same strain, andwithout any variety? Your favourite _Demosthenes_, whose brazen statue Ilately beheld among your own, and your family images, when I had thepleasure to visit you at Tusculanum, --Demosthenes, I say, was nothinginferior to _Lysias_ in simplicity; to _Hyperides_ in smartness andpoignancy, or to _Aeschines_ in the smoothness and splendor of hislanguage. There are many of his Orations which are entirely of the closeand simple character, as that against _Lepsines_; many which are allnervous, and striking, as those against _Philip_; and many which are of amixed character, as that against _Aeschines_, concerning the falseembassy, and another against the same person in defence of _Ctesiphon_. Atother times he strikes into the _mean_ at his pleasure, and quitting thenervous character, descends to this with all the ease imaginable. But heraises the acclamations of his audience, and his Oratory is then mostweighty and powerful, when he applies himself to the _nervous_. 

But as our enquiries relate to the art, and not to the artist, let usleave _him_ for the present, and consider the nature and the properties ofthe object before us, --that is, of _Eloquence_. We must keep in mind, however, what I have already hinted, --that we are not required to delivera system of precepts, but to write as judges and critics, rather thanteachers. But I have expatiated so largely upon the subject, because Iforesee that you (who are, indeed, much better versed in it, than I whopretend to inform you) will not be my only reader; but that my littleessay, though not much perhaps to my credit, will be made public, and withyour name prefixed to it. 

I am of opinion, therefore, that a finished Orator should not only possessthe talent (which, indeed, is peculiar, to himself) of speaking copiouslyand diffusively: but that he should also borrow the assistance of it'snearest neighbour, the art of Logic. For though public speaking is onething, and disputing another; and though there is a visible differencebetween a private controversy, and a public Harangue; yet both the one andthe other come under the notion of reasoning. But mere discourse andargument belongs to the Logician, and the art of Speaking gracefully andornamentally is the prerogative of the Orator. _Zeno_, the father of the_Stoics_, used to illustrate the difference between the two by holding uphis hand;--for when he clenched his fingers, and presented a close fist, --"_that_, " he said, "was an emblem of Logic:"--but when he spread them outagain, and displayed his open hand, --"this, " said he, "resemblesEloquence. " But Aristotle observed before him, in the introduction to hisRhetoric, that it is an art which has a near resemblance to that ofLogic;--and that the only difference between them is, that the method ofreasoning in the former is more diffusive, and in the latter more closeand contracted. 

I, therefore, advise that our finished Orator make himself master of everything in the art of Logic, which is applicable to his profession:--an art(as your thorough knowledge of it has already informed you) which istaught after two methods. For Aristotle himself has delivered a variety ofprecepts concerning the art of Reasoning:--and besides these, the_Dialecticians_ (as they are called) have produced many intricate andthorny speculations of their own. I am, therefore, of opinion, that he whois ambitious to be applauded for his Eloquence, should not be whollyunacquainted with this branch of Erudition; but that he ought (at least)to be properly instructed either in the old method, or in that of_Chrysippus_. In the first place, he should understand the force, theextension, and the different species of words as they stand singly, orconnected into sentences. He should likewise be acquainted with thevarious modes and forms in which any conception of the mind may beexpressed--the methods of distinguishing a true proposition from a falseone;--the different conclusions which result from different premises;--thetrue consequences and opposites to any given proposition;--and, if anargument is embarrassed by ambiguities, how to unravel each of them by anaccurate distinction. These particulars, I say, should be well understoodby an Orator, because they are such as frequently occur: but as they arenaturally rugged and unpleasing, they should be relieved in practice by aneasy brilliance of expression. 

But as in every topic which is discussed by reason and method, we shouldfirst settle what it is we are to discourse upon, --(for unless the partiesin a dispute are agreed about the subject of it, they can neither reasonwith propriety, nor bring the argument to an issue;)--it will frequentlybe necessary to explain our notions of it, and, when the matter isintricate, to lay it open by a _definition_;--for a _definition_ is only asentence, or explanation, which specifies, in as few words as possible, the nature of the object we propose to consider. After the _genus_, orkind, has been sufficiently determined, we must then proceed (you know) toexamine into it's different species, or subordinate parts, that our wholediscourse may be properly distributed among them. Our Orator, then, shouldbe qualified to make a just definition;--though not in such a close andcontracted form, as in the critical debates of the Academy, but moreexplicitly and copiously, and as will be best adapted to the common way ofthinking, and the capacity of the vulgar. He is likewise, as often asoccasion requires, to divide the genus into it's proper species, so as tobe neither defective, nor redundant. But _how_ and _when_ this should bedone, is not our present business to consider: because, as I observedbefore, I am not to assume the part of a teacher, but only of a critic anda judge. 

But he ought to acquaint himself not only with the art of Logic, but withall the common and most useful branches of Morality. For without acompetent knowledge of these, nothing can be advanced and unfolded withany spirit and energy, or with becoming dignity and freedom, eitherconcerning religion, --death, --filial piety, --the love of our country, --things good or evil, --the several virtues and vices, --the nature of moralobligation, --grief or pleasure, and the other emotions of the mind, --orthe various errors and frailties of humanity, --and a variety of importanttopics which are often closely connected with forensic causes; though_here_(it is true) they must be touched upon more slightly andsuperficially. I am now speaking of the _materials_ of Eloquence, and notof the _art_ itself:--for an Orator should always be furnished with aplentiful stock of sentiments, --(I mean such as may claim the attention ofthe learned, as well as of the vulgar)--before he concerns himself aboutthe language and the manner in which he ought to express himself. 

That he may make a still more respectable and elevated figure (as we havealready observed of _Pericles_) he should not be unacquainted with theprinciples of Natural Philosophy. For when he descends, as it were, fromthe starry heavens, to the little concerns of humanity, he will both thinkand speak with greater dignity and splendor. But after acquainting himselfwith those divine and nobler objects of contemplation, I would have himattend to human concerns. In particular, let him make himself master ofthe _Civil Law_, which is of daily, and indeed necessary use in every kindof causes. For what can be more scandalous, than to undertake themanagement of judicial suits and controversies, without a proper knowledgeof the laws, and of the principles of Equity and Jurisprudence? Heshould also be well versed in History and the venerable records ofAntiquity, but particularly those of his own country: not neglecting, however, to peruse the annals of other powerful nations, and illustriousmonarchs;--a toil which has been considerably shortened by our friend_Atticus_, who (though he has carefully specified the time of everyevent, and omitted no transaction of consequence) has comprized thehistory of seven hundred years in a single volume. To be unacquainted withwhat has passed in the world, before we came into it ourselves, is to bealways children. For what is the age of a single mortal, unless it isconnected, by the aid of History, with the times of our ancestors?Besides, the relation of past occurrences, and the producing pertinent andstriking examples, is not only very entertaining, but adds a great deal ofdignity and weight to what we say. 

Thus furnished and equipped our Orator may undertake the management ofcauses. But, in the first place, he should be well acquainted with theirdifferent kinds. He should know, for instance, that every judicialcontroversy must turn either upon a matter of _fact_, or upon the meaningof some particular expression. As to the former, this must always relateeither to the _reality_ of a fast, the _equity_ of it, or the _name_ itbears in law. As to forms of expression, these may become the subject ofcontroversy, when they are either _ambiguous_, or _contradictory_. Forwhen the _spirit_ of a law appears to be at variance with the _letter_ ofit, this must cause an ambiguity which commonly arises from some of thepreceding terms; so that in this case (for such is the nature of anambiguity) the law will appear to have a double meaning. 

As the kinds of causes are so few, the rules for the invention ofarguments must be few also. The topics, or common places from which thosearguments are derived, are twofold, --the one _inherent_ in the subject, and the other _assumptive_. A skilful management of the former contributesmost to, give weight to a discourse, and strike the attention of thehearer: because they are easy, and familiar to the understanding. 

What farther remains (within the province of the Art) but that we shouldbegin our discourses so as to conciliate the hearer's good-will, or raisehis expectation, or prepare him to receive what follows?--to state thecase before us so concisely, and yet so plausibly and clearly, as that thesubstance of it may be easily comprehended?--to support our own proofs, and refute those of our antagonist, not in a confused and disorderlymanner, but so that every inference may be fairly deducible from thepremises?--and, in the last place, to conclude the whole with a perorationeither to inflame or allay the passions of the audience? How each of theseparts should be conducted is a subject too intricate and extensive for ourpresent consideration: for they are not always to be managed in the samemanner. 

But as I am not seeking a pupil to instruct, but an Orator who is to bethe model of his profession, _he_ must have the preference who can alwaysdiscern what is proper and becoming. For Eloquence should, above all, things, have that kind of discretion which makes her a _perfect mistressof time and character_: because we are not to speak upon every occasion, or before every audience, or against every opponent, or in defence ofevery client, and to every Judge, in the same invariable manner. He, therefore, is the man of genuine Eloquence, who can adapt his language towhat is most suitable to each. By doing this, he will be sure to say everything as it ought to be said. He will neither speak drily upon copioussubjects, nor without dignity and spirit upon things of importance; buthis language will always be proportioned, and equal to his subject. Hisintroduction will be modest, --not flaming with all the glare ofexpression, but composed of quick and lively turns of sentiment, either towound the cause of his antagonist, or recommend his own. His narrativeswill be clear and plausible, --not delivered with the grave formality of anHistorian, but in the style of polite conversation. If his cause beslight, the thread of his argument, both in proving and refuting, will beso likewise, and he will so conduct it in every part, that his languagemay rise and expand itself, as the dignity of his subject encreases. Butwhen his cause will admit a full exertion of the powers of Eloquence, hewill then display himself more openly;--he will then rule, and bend thepassions, and direct them, at his pleasure, --that is, as the nature of hiscause and the circumstances of the time shall require. 

But his powers of ornament will be chiefly exerted upon two occasions; Imean that striking kind of ornament, from which Eloquence derives hergreatest glory. For though every part of an Oration should have so muchmerit, as not to contain a single word but what is either weighty orelegant; there are two very interesting parts which are susceptible of thegreatest variety of ornament. The one is the discussion of an indefinitequestion, or general truth, which by the Greeks (as I have beforeobserved) is called a _thesis_: and the other is employed in amplifyingand exaggerating, which they call an _auxesis_. Though the latter, indeed, should diffuse itself more or less through the whole body of a discourse, it's powers will be more conspicuous in the use and improvement of the_common places_:--which are so called, as being alike _common_ to a numberof causes, though (in the application of them) they are constantlyappropriated to a single one. But as to the other part, which regardsuniversal truths, or indefinite questions, this frequently extends througha whole cause:--for the leading point in debate, or that which thecontroversy hinges upon, is always most conveniently discussed when it canbe reduced to a general question, and considered as an universalproposition:--unless, indeed, when the mere truth of a matter of fact: isthe object: of disquisition: for then the case must be wholly conjectural. We are not, however, to argue like the _Peripatetics_ (who have a neatmethod of controversy which they derive from _Aristotle_) but morenervously and pressingly; and general sentiments must be so applied toparticular cases, as to leave us room to say many extenuating things inbehalf of the Defendant, and many severe ones against the Plaintiff. Butin heightening or softening a circumstance, the powers of language areunlimited, and may be properly exerted, even in the middle of an argument, as often as any thing presents itself which may be either exaggerated, orextenuated; but, in, controul. 

There are two parts, however, which must not be omitted;--for when theseare judiciously conducted, the sorce of Eloquence will be amazing. The oneis a certain _propriety of manner_ (called the _ethic_ by the Greeks)which readily adapts itself to different dispositions and humours, and toevery station of life:--and the other is the pathetic, which rouses andalarms the passions, and may be considered as the _scepter_ of Eloquence. The former is mild and insinuating, and entirely calculated to conciliatethe good-will of the hearer: but the latter is all energy and fire, andsnatches a cause by open violence;--and when it's course is rapid andunrestrained, the shock is irresistible. I [footnote: Here follows thesecond passage above-referred to, in which there is a long string of_Egotisms_. But as they furnish some very instructive hints, the Readerwill peruse them with more pleasure than pain] myself have possessed atolerable share of this, or, it may be, a trifling one:--but as I alwaysspoke with uncommon warmth and impetuosity, I have frequently forced myantagonist to relinquish the field. _Hortensius_, an eminent Speaker, oncedeclined to answer me, though in defence of an intimate friend. _Cataline_, a most audacious traitor, being publicly accused by me in theSenate-house, was struck dumb with shame: and _Curio_, the father, when heattempted to reply to me in a weighty and important cause which concernedthe honour of his family, sat suddenly down, and complained that I had_bewitched_ him out of his memory. As to moving the pity of my audience, it will be unnecessary to mention this. I have frequently attempted itwith good success, and when several of us have pleaded on the same side, this part of the defence was always resigned to me; in which my supposedexcellence was not owing to the superiority of my genius, but to the realconcern I felt for the distresses of my client. But what in this respecthave been my talents (for I have had no reason to complain of them) may beeasily discovered in my Orations:--though a book, indeed, must lose muchof the spirit which makes a speech delivered in public appear to greateradvantage than when it is perused in the closet. 

But we are to raise not only the pity of our judges, (which I haveendeavoured so passionately, that I once took up an infant in my armswhile I was speaking;--and, at another time, calling up the nobleman inwhose defence I spoke, and holding up a little child of his before thewhole assembly, I filled the Forum with my cries and lamentations:)--butit is also necessary to rouse the judge's indignation, to appease it, toexcite his jealousy, his benevolence, his contempt, his wonder, hisabhorrence, his love, his desire, his aversion, his hope, his fear, hisjoy, and his grief:--in all which variety, you may find examples, in manyaccusatory speeches, of rousing the harsher passions; and my Defences willfurnish instances enough of the methods of working upon the gentler. Forthere is no method either of alarming or soothing the passions, but whathas been attempted by _me_. I would say I have carried it to perfection, if I either thought so, or was not afraid that (in this case) even truthitself might incur the charge of arrogance. But (as I have beforeobserved) I have been so much transported, not by the force of my genius, but by the real fervor of my heart, that I was unable to restrain myself:--and, indeed, no language will inflame the mind of the hearer, unless theSpeaker himself first catches the ardor, and glows with the importance ofhis subject. I would refer to examples of my own, unless you had seen themalready; and to those of other Speakers among the Romans, if I couldproduce any, or among the Greeks, if I judged it proper. But _Crassus_will only furnish us with a few, and those not of the forensic kind:--_Antonius, Cotta_, and _Sulpicius_ with none:--and as to _Hortensius_, hespoke much better than he wrote. We may, therefore, easily judge howamazing must be the force of a talent, of which we have so few examples:--but if we are resolved to seek for them, we must have recourse to_Demosthenes_, in whom we find almost a continued succession of them, inthat part of his Oration for _Ctesiphon_, where he enlarges on his ownactions, his measures, and his good services to the State, For thatOration, I must own, approaches so near to the primary form or semblanceof Eloquence which exists in my mind, that a more complete and exaltedpattern is scarcely desirable. But still, there will remain a generalmodel or character, the true nature and excellence of which may be easilycollected from the hints I have already offered. 

We have slightly touched upon the ornamentsof language, both in single words, and in words as they stand connectedwith each other;--in which our Orator will so indulge himself, that not asingle expression may escape him, but what is either elegant or weighty. But he will most abound in the _metaphor_; which, by an aptness ofsimilitude, conveys and transports the mind from object to object, andhurries it backwards and forwards through a pleasing variety of images;--amotion which, in its own nature, (as being full of life and action) cannever fail to be highly delightful. As to the other ornaments of languagewhich regard words as they are connected with each other, an Oration willderive much of its lustre from these. They are like the decorations in theTheatre, or the Forum, which not only embellish, but surprize. [Footnote:In the following Abstract of the Figures of _Language_ and _Sentiment_, Ihave often paraphrased upon my author, to make him intelligible to theEnglish reader;--a liberty which I have likewise taken in several otherplaces, where I judged it necessary. ] For such also is the effect of thevarious _figures_ or decorations of language;--such as the doubling orrepetition of the same word;--the repeating it with a slight variation;--the beginning or concluding several sentences in the same manner, orboth at once;--the making a word, which concludes a preceding sentence, tobegin the following;--the concluding a sentence with the same expressionwhich began it;--the repeating the same word with a different meaning;--the using several corresponding words in the same case, or with the sametermination;--the contrasting opposite expressions;--the using words whosemeaning rises in gradation;--the leaving out the conjunctive particles toshew our earnestness;--the passing by, or suddenly dropping a circumstancewe were going to mention, and assigning a reason for so doing;--[Footnote: We have an instance of this, considered as a figure oflanguage, in the following line of Virgil; Quos ego--, sed praestat motos componere fluctus. Aeneid. I. Whom I--, but let me still the raging waves. This may likewise serve as an example of the figure which is nextmentioned. ] the pretending to correct or reprove ourselves, that we mayseem to speak without artifice or partiality;--the breaking out into asudden exclamation, to express our wonder, our abhorrence, or our grief;--and the using the same noun in different cases. 

But the figures of _sentiment_ are more weighty and powerful; and thereare some who place the highest merit of _Demosthenes_ in the frequent usehe makes of them. For be his subject what it will, almost all hissentences have a figurative air: and, indeed, a plentiful intermixture ofthis sort of figures is the very life and soul of a popular Eloquence. Butas you are thoroughly acquainted with these, my Brutus, what occasion isthere to explain and exemplify them? The bare mention of them will besufficient. --Our Orator, then, will sometimes exhibit an idea in differentpoints of view, and when he has started a good argument, he will dwellupon it with an honest exultation;--he will extenuate what isunfavourable, and have frequent recourse to raillery;--he will sometimesdeviate from his plan, and seem to alter his first purpose:--he willinform his audience beforehand, what are the principal points upon whichhe intends to rest his cause;--he will collect and point out the force ofthe arguments he has already discussed; he will check an ardentexpression, or boldly reiterate what he has said;--he will close a livelyparagraph with some weighty and convincing sentiment;--he will press uponhis adversary by repeated interrogations;--he will reason with himself, and answer questions of his own proposing;--he will throw out expressionswhich he designs to be otherwise understood than they seem to mean;--hewill pretend to doubt what is most proper to be said, and in what order;--he will divide an action, &c. Into its several parts and circumstances, torender it more striking;--he will pretend to pass over and relinquish acircumstance which might have been urged to advantage;--he will securehimself against the known prejudices of his audience;--he will turn thevery circumstance which is alledged against him to the prejudice of hisantagonist;--he will frequently appeal to his hearers, and sometimes tohis opponent;--he will represent the very language and manners of thepersons he is speaking of;--he will introduce irrational and eveninanimate beings, as addressing themselves to his audience;--he will (toserve some necessary purpose) steal off their attention from the point indebate;--he will frequently move them to mirth and laughter;--he willanswer every thing which he foresees will be objected;--he will comparesimilar incidents, --refer to past examples, --and by way of amplificationassign their distinguishing qualities to opposite characters andcircumstances;--he will check an impertinent plea which may interrupt hisargument;--he will pretend not to mention what he might have urged to goodpurpose;--he will caution his hearers against the various artifices andsubterfuges which may be employed to deceive them;--he will sometimesappear to speak with an honest, but unguarded freedom;--he will avow hisresentment;--he will entreat;--he will earnestly supplicate;--he willapologize;--he will seem for a moment to forget himself;--he will expresshis hearty good wishes for the deserving, and vent his execrations againstnotorious villainy;--and now and then he will descend imperceptibly to themost tender and insinuating familiarities. There are likewise Otherbeauties of composition which he will not fail to pursue;--such as brevitywhere the subject requires it;--a lively and pathetic description ofimportant occurrences;--a passionate exaggeration of remarkablecircumstances;--an earnestness of expression which implies more than issaid;--a well-timed variety of humour;--and a happy imitation of differentcharacters and dispositions. Assisted and adorned by such figures asthese, which are very numerous, the force of Eloquence will appear in itsbrightest lustre. But even these, unless they are properly formed andregulated, by a skilful disposition of their constituent words, will neverattain the merit we require;--a subject which I shall be obliged to treatof in the sequel, though I am restrained partly by the circumstancesalready mentioned, but much more so by the following. For I am sensiblenot only that there are some invidious people, to whom every improvementappears vain and superfluous; but that even those, who are well-wishers tomy reputation, may think it beneath the dignity of a man whose publicservices have been so honourably distinguished by the Senate, and thewhole body of the Roman people, to employ my pen so largely upon the artof Speaking. [Footnote: The long apology which our author is now going tomake for bestowing his time in composing a treatise of Oratory, is in facta very artful as well as an elegant digression; to relieve the dryness andintricacy of the abstract he has just given us of the figures of rhetoric, and of the subsequent account of the rules of prosaic harmony. He has alsoenlivened that account (which is a very long one) in the same manner, byinterspersing it, at convenient distances, with fine examples, agreeablecompanions, and short historical digressions to elucidate the subject. ]

If, however, I was to return no other answer to the latter, but that I wasunwilling to deny any thing to the request of Brutus, the apology must beunexceptionable; because I am only aiming at the satisfaction of anintimate friend, and a worthy man, who desires nothing of me but what isjust and honourable. 

But was I even to profess (what I wish I was capable of) that I mean togive the necessary precepts, and point out the road to Eloquence to thosewho are desirous to qualify themselves for the Forum, what man of sensecould blame me for it? For who ever doubted that in the decision ofpolitical matters, and in time of peace, Eloquence has always borne thesway in the Roman state, while Jurisprudence has possessed only the secondpost of honour? For whereas the former is a constant source of authorityand reputation, and enables us to defend ourselves and our friends in themost effectual manner;--the other only furnishes us with formal rules forindictments, pleas, protests, &c. In conducting which she is frequentlyobliged to sue for the assistance of Eloquence;--but if the lattercondescends to oppose her, she is scarcely able to maintain her ground, and defend her own territories. If therefore to teach the Civil Law hasalways been reckoned a very honourable employment, and the houses of themost eminent men of that profession, have been crowded with disciples; whocan be reasonably censured for exciting our youth to the study ofEloquence, and furnishing them with all the assistance in his power? If itis a fault to speak gracefully, let Eloquence be for ever banished fromthe state. But if, on the contrary, it reflects an honour, not only uponthe man who possesses it, but upon the country which gave him birth, howcan it be a disgrace to _learn_, what it is so glorious to _know_? Or whyshould it not be a credit to _teach_ what it is the highest honour tohave _learned_?

But, in one case, they will tell me, the practice has been sanctified bycustom, and in the other it has not. This I grant: but We may easilyaccount for both. As to the gentlemen of the law, it was sufficient tohear them, when they decided upon such cases as were laid before them inthe course of business;--so that when they taught, they did not set apartany particular time for that purpose, but the same answers satisfied theirclients and their pupils. On the other hand, as our Speakers of eminencespent their time, while at home, in examining and digesting their causes, and while in the Forum in pleading them, and the remainder of it in aseasonable relaxation, what opportunity had they for teaching andinstructing others? I might venture to add that most of our Orators havebeen more distinguishied by their _genius_, than by their _learning_; andfor that reason were much better qualified to be _Speakers_ than_Teachers_; which it is possible may be the reverse of my case. --"True, "say they; "but teaching is an employment which is far from beingrecommended by its dignity. " And so indeed it is, if we teach like merepedagogues. But if we only direct, encourage, examine, and inform ourpupils; and sometimes accompany them in reading or hearing theperformances of the most eminent Speakers;--if by these means we are ableto contribute to their improvement, what should hinder us fromcommunicating a few instructions, as opportunity offers? Shall we deem itan honourable employment, as indeed with us it is, to teach the form of alegal process, or an excommunication from the rites and privileges of ourreligion; and shall it not be equally honourable to teach the methods bywhich those privileges may be defended and secured?--"Perhaps it may, "they will reply; "but even those who know scarcely any thing of the laware ambitious to be thought masters of it; whereas those who are wellfurnished with the powers of Eloquence pretend to be wholly unacquaintedwith them; because they are sensible that useful knowledge is a valuablerecommendation, whereas an artful tongue is suspected by every one. " Butis it possible, then, to exert the powers of Eloquence without discoveringthem? Or is an Orator really thought to be no Orator, because he disclaimsthe title? Or is it likely that, in a great and noble art, the world willjudge it a scandal to _teach_ what it is the greatest honour to _learn_?Others, indeed, may have been more reserved; but, for my part, I havealways owned my profession. For how could I do otherwise, when, in myyouth, I left my native land, and crossed the sea, with no other view butto improve myself in this kind of knowledge; and, when afterwards my housewas crowded with the ablest professors, and my very style betrayed sometraces of a liberal education? Nay, when my own writings were in everybody's hands, with what face could I pretend that I had not studied? Orwhat excuse could I have for submitting my abilities to the judgment ofthe public, if I had been apprehensive that they would think I had studiedto no purpose? [Footnote: This sentence in the original runs thus;--_Quiderat cur probarem_ (i. E. Scripta nostra), _nisi quod parum fortasseprofeceram_?--"Wherefore did I approve of them, " (that is, of my writings, so far as to make them public) "but because I had, " (in my own opinion)"made a progress, though perhaps a small one, in useful literature?" This, at least, is the only meaning I am able to affix to it; and I flattermyself, that the translation I have given of it, will be found tocorrespond with the general sense of my author. ] But the points we havealready discussed are susceptible of greater dignity and elevation, thanthose which remain to be considered. For we are next to treat of thearrangement of our words; and, indeed, I might have said, of the art ofnumbering and measuring our very syllables; which, though it may, inreality, be a matter of as much consequence as I judge it to be, cannothowever be supposed to have such a striking appearance in precept as inpractice. This, indeed, might be said of every other branch of usefulknowledge; but it is more remarkably true with respect to this. For theactual growth and improving height of all the sublimer arts, like that oftrees, affords a pleasing prospect; whereas the roots and stems arescarcely beheld with indifference: and yet the former cannot subsistwithout the latter. But whether I am restrained from dissembling thepleasure I take in the subject, by the honest advice of the Poet, whosays, "Blush not to own the art you love to practise. "

or whether this treatise has been extorted from me by the importunity ofmy friend, it was proper to obviate the censures to which it will probablyexpose me. And yet, even supposing that I am mistaken in my sentiments, who would shew himself so much of a savage, as to refuse me his indulgence(now all my forensic employments and public business are at an end) fornot resigning myself to that stupid inactivity which is contrary to mynature, or to that unavailing sorrow which I do my best to overcome, rather than devote myself to my favourite studies? These first conductedme into the Forum and the Senate-House, and they are now the chiefcomforts of my retirement. I have, however, applied myself not only tosuch speculations as form the subject of the present Essay, but to othersmore sublime and interesting; and if I am able to discuss them in a propermanner, my private studies will be no disparagement to my forensicemployments. 

But it is time to return to our subject. --Our words, then, should be sodisposed that every following one may be aptly connected with thepreceding, so as to make an agreeable sound;--or that the mere form and_concinnity_ of our language may give our sentences their proper measureand dimensions;--or, lastly, that our periods may have a numerous andmeasured cadence. 

The first thing, then, to be attended to, is the _structure_ of ourlanguage, or the agreeable connection of one word with another; which, though it certainly requires care, ought not to be practised with alaborious nicety. For this would be an endless and puerile attempt, and isjustly ridiculed by _Lucilius_, when he introduces _Scaevola_ thusreflecting upon _Albucius_:

 "As in the checquer'd pavement ev'ry square Is nicely fitted by the mason's care: So all thy words are plac'd with curious art, And ev'ry syllable performs its part. "

But though we are not to be minutely exact in the _structure_ of ourlanguage, a moderate share of practice will habituate us to every thing ofthis nature which is necessary. For as the eye in _reading_, so the mindin _speaking_, will readily discern what ought to follow, --that, inconnecting our words, there may neither be a chasm, nor a disagreeableharshness. The most lively and interesting sentiments, if they are harshlyexpressed, will offend the ear, that delicate and fastidious judge ofrhetorical harmony. This circumstance, therefore, is so carefully attendedto in the Roman language, that there is scarcely a rustic among us who isnot averse to a collision of vowels, --a defect which, in the opinion ofsome, was too scrupulously avoided by _Theopompus_, though his master_Isocrates_ was equally cautious. But _Thucydides_ was not so exact; norwas Plato, (though a much better writer)--not only in his _Dialogues_, inwhich it was necessary to maintain an easy negligence, to resemble thestyle of conversation, but in the famous _Panegyric_, in which (accordingto the custom of the Athenians) he celebrated the praises of those whofell in battle, and which was so greatly esteemed, that it is publiclyrepeated every year. In that Oration a collision of vowels occurs veryfrequently; though _Demosthenes_ generally avoids it as a fault. 

But let the Greeks determine for themselves: we Romans are not allowed tointerrupt the connection of our words. Even the rude and unpolishedOrations of _Cato_ are a proof of this; as are likewise all our poets, except in particular instances, in which they were obliged to admit a fewbreaks, to preserve their metre. Thus we find in _Naevius_, "_Vos_ QUI ACCOLITIS _histrum_ FLUVIUM ATQUE ALGIDUM. "

And in another place, "_Quam nunquam vobis_ GRAII ATQUE _Barbari_. "

But _Ennius_ admits it only once, when he says, "_Scipio invicte_;"

and likewise I myself in

 "_Hoc motu radiantis_ ETESIAE IN _Vada Ponti_. "

This, however, would seldom be suffered among us, though the Greeks oftencommend it as a beauty. 

But why do I speak of a collision of vowels? for, omitting this, we havefrequently _contracted_ our words for the sake of brevity; as in _multi'modis, vas' argenteis, palm' et crinibus, tecti' fractis_, &c. We havesometimes also contracted our proper _names_, to give them a smoothersound: for as we have changed _Duellum_ into _Bellum_, and _duis_ into_bis_, so _Duellius_, who defeated the Carthagenians at sea, was called_Bellius_, though all his ancestors were named _Duellii_. We likewiseabbreviate our words, not only for convenience, but to please and gratifythe ear. For how otherwise came _axilla_ to be changed into _ala_, but bythe omission of an unweildy consonant, which the elegant pronunciation ofour language has likewise banished from the words _maxillae, taxillae, vexillum_, and _paxillum_?

Upon the same principle, two or more words have been contracted into one, as _sodes_ for _si audes_, _sis_ for _si vis_, _capsis_ for _cape si vis_, _ain'_ for _aisne_, _nequire_ for _non quire_, _malle_ for _magis velle_, and _nolle_ for _non velle_; and we often say _dein'_ and _exin'_ for_deinde_ and _exinde_. It is equally evident why we never say _cum nobis_, but _nobiscum_; though we do not scruple to say _cum illis_;--_viz. _because, in the former case, the union of the consonants _m_ and _n_ wouldproduce a jarring sound: and we also say _mecum_ and _tecum_, and not _cumme_ and _cum te_, to correspond with _nobiscum_ and _vobiscum_. But some, who would correct antiquity rather too late, object to these contractions:for, instead of _prob_ DEŪM _atque hominum fidem_, they say _Deorum_. Theyare not aware, I suppose, that custom has sanctified the licence. The samePoet, therefore, who, almost without a precedent, has said _patris meiMEŪM FACTŪM pudet_, instead of _meorum factorum_, --and _textitur exitiūmexamen rapit_ for _exitiorum_, does not choose to say _liberum_, as wegenerally do in the expressions _cupidos liberūm_, and _in liberūm loco_, but, as the literary virtuosos above-mentioned would have it, _neque tuum unquam in gremium extollas_ LIBERORUM _ex te genus_, and, _namque Aesculapī_ LIBERORUM. 

But the author before quoted says in his Chryses, not only

 _Cives, antiqui amici majorum_ MEŪM, which was common enough--, but more harshly still, CONSILIŪM, AUGURIŪM, _atque_ EXTŪM _interpretes_;

and in another place, _Postquam_ PRODIGIŪM HORRIFERŪM PORTENTŪM _pavos_. 

a licence which is not customary in all neuters indifferently: for Ishould not be so willing to say armūm _judicium_, as _armorum_; though inthe same writer we meet with _nihilne ad te de judicio_ armūm _accidit_?And yet (as we find it in the public registers) I would venture to say_fabrūm_, and _procūm_, and not _fabrorum_ and _procorum_. But I wouldnever say duorum virorum _judicium_, or _trium_ virorum _capitalium_, or_decem_ virorum _litibus judicandis_. In Accius, however, we meet with

 _Video sepulchra duo_ duorum _corporum_;

though in another place he says, _Mulier una_ duum virum. 

I know, indeed, which is most conformable to the rules of grammar: but yetI sometimes express myself as the freedom of our language allows me, aswhen I say at pleasure, either _prob deum_, or _prob deorum_;--and, atother times, as I am obliged by custom, as when I say _trium_ virum for_virorum_, or sestertium nummum for _nummorum_: because in the latter casethe mode of expression is invariable. 

But what shall we say when these humourists forbid us to say _nosse_ and_judicasse_ for _novisse_ and _judicavisse_; as if we did not know, aswell as themselves, that, in these instances, the verb at full length ismost agreeable to the laws of grammar, though custom has given thepreference to the contracted verb? Terence, therefore, has made use ofboth, as when he says, _eho tu cognatum tuum non norās_? and afterwards, _Stilphonem, inquam, noveras_?

Thus also, _fiet_ is a perfect verb, and _fit_ a contracted one; andaccordingly we find in the same Comedian, _Quam cara_ SINTQUE _post carendo intelligunt_, and

 _Quamque attinendi magni dominatus_ SIENT. 

In the same manner I have no objection to _scripsere alii rem_, though Iam sensible that _scripserunt_ is more grammatical; because I submit withpleasure to the indulgent laws of custom which delights to gratify theear. _Idem campus habet_, says Ennius; and in another place, _in templisīsdem_; _eisdem_, indeed, would have been more grammatical, but notsufficiently harmonious; and _iisdem_ would have sounded still worse. 

But we are allowed by custom even to dispense with the rules of etymologyto improve the sweetness of our language; and I would therefore rathersay, _pomeridianas Quadrigas_, than _postmeridianas_; and _mehercule_, than _mehercules_. For the same reason _non scire_ would now be deemed abarbarism, becaule _nescire_ has a smoother sound; and we have likewisesubstituted _meridiem_ for _medidiem_, because the latter was offensive tothe ear. Even the preposition _ab_, which so frequently occurs in ourcompound verbs is preserved entire only in the formality of a Journal, and, indeed, not always there: in every other sort of language it isfrequently altered. Thus we say _amovit_, _abegit_, and _abstulit_; sothat you can scarcely determine whether the primitive preposition shouldbe _ab_ or _abs_. We have likewise rejected even _abfugit_, and _abfer_, and introduced _aufugit_ and _aufer_ in their stead;--thus forming a newpreposition, which is to be found in no other verb but these. _Noti_, _navi_, and _nari_, have all been words in common use: but when they wereafterwards to be compounded with the preposition _in_, it was thought moreharmonious to say _ignoti_, _ignavi_, and _ignari_, than to adherestrictly to the rules of etymology. We likewise say _ex usu_, and _eRepublicā_; because, in the former case, the preposition is followed by avowel, and, in the latter, it would have sounded harshly without omittingthe consonant; as may also be observed in _exegit, edixit, refecit, retulit_, and _reddidit_. 

Sometimes the preposition alters or otherwise affects the first letter ofthe verb with which it happens to be compounded; as in _subegit, summutavit_, and _sustutit_. At other times it changes one of thesubsequent letters; as when we say _insipientem_ for _insapientem_, _iniquum_ for inaequum_, _tricipitem_ for _tricapitem_, and _concisum_ for_concaesum_: and from hence some have ventured to say _pertisum_ for_pertaesum_, which custom has never warranted. 

But what can be more delicate than our changing even the natural quantityof our syllables to humour the ear? Thus in the adjectives _inclytus_, and_inhumanus_, the first syllable after the preposition is short, whereas_insanus_ and _infelix_ have it long; and, in general, those words whosefirst letters are the same as in _sapiens_ and _felix_, have their firstsyllable long in composition, but all others have the same syllable short, as _composuit, consuevit, concrepuit, confecit_. Examine these libertiesby the strict rules of etymology, and they must certainly be condemned;but refer them to the decision of the ear, and they will be instantlyapproved. --What is the reason? Your ear will inform you they have aneasier sound; and every language must submit to gratify the ear. I myself, because our ancestors never admitted the aspirate, unless where a syllablebegan with a vowel, used to say _pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos_, and_Cartaginem_: but some time afterwards, though not very soon, when thisgrammatical accuracy was wrested from me by the censure of the ear, Iresigned the mode of language to the vulgar, and reserved the theory tomyself. But we still say, without any hesitation, _Orcivios, Matones, Otones, coepiones, sepulcra, coronas_, and _lacrymas_, because the earallows it. _Ennius_ always uses _Burrum_, and never _Pyrrhum_; and theancient copies of the same author have

 _Vi patefecerunt BRUGES_, not _Phryges_; because the Greek vowel had not then been adopted, thoughwe now admit both that and the aspirate:--and, in fact, when we hadafterwards occasion to say _Phrygum_ and _Phrygibus_, it was rather absurdto adopt the Greek letter without adopting their cases, [Footnote: Thispassage, as it stands in the original, appears to me unintelligible: Ihave therefore taken the liberty to give it a slight alteration. ] or atleast not to confine it to the nominative; and yet (in the accusative) wesay _Phryges_, and _Pyrrhum_, to please the ear. Formerly it was esteemedan elegancy, though it would now be considered as a rusticism, to omit the_s_ in all words which terminate in _us_, except when they were followedby a vowel; and the same elision which is so carefully avoided by themodern Poets, was very far from being reckoned a fault among the ancient:for they made no scruple to say, _Qui est OMNIBU' princeps_, not, as we do, OMNIBUS princeps; and, _Vitā illā DIGNU' locoque_, not _dignus_. 

But if untaught custom has been so ingenious in the formation of agreeablesounds, what may we not expect from the improvements of art and erudition?I have, however, been much shorter upon this subject, than I should havebeen if I had written upon it professedly: for a comparison of the naturaland customary laws of language would have opened a wide field forspeculation: but I have already enlarged upon it sufficiently, and more, perhaps, than the nature of my design required. 

To proceed then;--as the choice of proper matter, and of suitable words toexpress it, depends upon the judgment of the Speaker, but that ofagreeable sounds, and harmonious numbers, upon the decision of the ear;and because the former is intended for information, and the latter forpleasure; it is evident that reason must determine the rules of art in onecase, and mere sensation in the other. For we must either neglect thegratification of those by whom we wish to be approved, or apply ourselvesto invent the most likely methods to promote it. 

There are two things which contribute to gratify the ear, --agreeable_sounds_, and harmonious _numbers_. We shall treat of numbers in thesequel, and at present confine ourselves to _sound_. --Those words, then, as we have already observed, are to have the preference which soundagreeably;--not such as are exquisitely melodious, like those of thePoets, but such as can be found to our purpose in common language. --_QuąPontus Helles_ is rather beyond the mark:--but in

 _Auratos aries Colchorum_, the verse glitters with a moderate harmony of expression; whereas thenext, as ending with a letter which is remarkably flat, is unmusical, _Frugifera et ferta arva Alfiae tenet_, Let us, therefore, rather content ourselves with the agreeable mediocrityof our own language, than emulate the splendor of the Greeks; unless weare so bigotted to the latter as to hesitate to say with the poet, _Quą tempestate Paris Helenam, &c_. 

we might even imitate what follows, and avoid, as far as possible, thesmallest asperity of sound, _habeo istam ego PERTERRICREPAM_;

or say, with the same author, in another passage, _versutiloquas MALITIAS_. 

But our words must have a proper _compass_, as well as be connectedtogether in an agreeable manner; for this, we have observed, is anothercircumstance which falls under the notice of the ear. They are confined toa proper compass, either by certain rules of composition, as by a kind ofnatural pause, or by the use of particular forms of expression, which havea peculiar _concinnity_ in their very texture; such as a succession ofseveral words which have the same termination, or the comparing similar, and contrasting opposite circumstances, which will always terminate in ameasured cadence, though no immediate pains should be taken for thatpurpose. Gorgias, it is said, was the first Orator who practised thisspecies of _concinnity_. The following passage in my Defence of _Milo_ isan example. 

"Est enim, Judices, haec non _scripta_, fed _nata_ Lex; quam non_didicimus, accepimus, legimus_, verum ex Naturā ipsā _arripuimus, hausimus, expressimus_; ad quam non _docti_, sed _facti_; non_instituti_, sed _imbuti_ simus. "

"For this, my Lords, is a law not written upon tables, but impressed uponour hearts;--a law which we have not learned, or heard, or read, buteagerly caught and imbibed from the hand of Nature;--a law to which wehave not been train'd, but originally form'd; and with the principles ofwhich we have not been furnished by education, but tinctured andimpregnated from the moment of our birth. "

In these forms of expression every circumstance is so aptly referred tosome other circumstance, that the regular turn of them does not appear tohave been studied, but to result entirely from the sense. The same effectis produced by contrasting opposite circumstances; as in the followinglines, where it not only forms a measured sentence, but a verse:

 _Eam, quam nihil accusas, damnas, _

Her, whom you ne'er accus'd, you now condemn;

(in prose we should say _condemnas_) and again, _Bene quam meritam esse autumas, dicis male mereri_, Her merit, once confess'd, you now deny; and, _Id quod scis, prodest nihil; id quod nescis, obest_, From what you've learnt no real good accrues, But ev'ry ill your ignorance pursues. 

Here you see the mere opposition of the terms produces a verse; but inprosaic composition, the proper form of the last line would be, _quod scisnihil prodest; quod nescis multum obest_. This contrasting of oppositecircumstances, which the Greeks call an Antithesis, will necessarilyproduce what is styled _rhetorical metre_, even without our intending it. The ancient Orators, a considerable time before it was practised andrecommended by _Isocrates_, were fond of using it; and particularly_Gorgias_, whose measured cadences are generally owing to the mere_concinnity_ of his language. I have frequently practised it myself; as, for instance, in the following passage of my fourth Invective against_Verres_:

"Conferte _hanc Pacem_ cum _illo Bello_;--_hujus_ Praetoris _Adventum_, cum _illius_ Imperatoris _Victoriā_;--hujas _Cohortem impuram_, cum illius_Exercitu invicto_;--hujus _Libidines_, cum illius _Continentiā_;--ab illoqui cepit _conditas_; ab hoc, qui constitutas accepit, _captas_ dicetisSyracusas. "

"Compare this detestable _peace_ with that glorious _war_, --the _arrival_of this governor with the _victory_ of that commander, --his _ruffianguards_, with the _invincible forces_ of the other;--the brutal luxury ofthe former, with the modest temperance of the latter;--and you will say, that Syracuse was really _founded_ by him who _stormed_ it, and _stormed_by him who received it already _founded_ to his hands. "--So much, then, for that kind of measure which results from particular forms ofexpression, and which ought to be known by every Orator. 

We must now proceed to the third thing proposed, --that _numerous_ andwell-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible asnot to feel it, I cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or whatresemblance of a human Being! For my part, my ears are always fond of acomplete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant whatis either defective or redundant. But wherefore do I say _mine_? I havefrequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at ahappy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should beproperly tuned and measured. This, however, is an accomplishment which isnot to be met with among the ancients. But to compensate the want of it, they had almost every other perfection: for they had a happy choice ofwords, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had notthe art of harmonizing and completing their periods. This, say some, isthe very thing we admire. But what if they should take it into their headsto prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, tothe rich and finished style of the moderns? The former, I suppose, must beagain adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected. Butthese pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ ofantiquity. It must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim toauthority in matters of imitation, as grey hairs in the precedence of age. I myself have as great a veneration for it as any man: nor do I so muchupbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she wasmistress of:--especially as I judge the latter to be of far greaterconsequence than the former. For there is certainly more real merit in amasterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowedto excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totallyunacquainted. This species of composition was not known among the Romanstill lately: but the ancients, I believe, would readily have adopted it, if it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is nowmade use of by all Orators of reputation. "But when _number_, or (as theGreeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicialand forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound:for people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to soothand captivate their ears, when the Speaker is so over-exact as to attendto the harmony of his periods. " Relying upon the force of this objection, these pretenders are perpetually grating our ears with their broken andmutilated sentences; and censure those, without mercy, who have thepresumption to utter an agreeable and a well-turned period. If, indeed, itwas our design to spread a varnish over empty words and triflingsentiments, the censure would be just: but when the matter is good, andthe words are proper and expressive, what reason can be assigned why weshould prefer a limping and imperfect period to one which terminates andkeeps pace with the sense? For this invidious and persecuted _metre_ aimsat nothing more than to adapt the compass of our words to that of ourthoughts; which is sometimes done even by the ancients, --though generally, I believe, by mere accident, and often by the natural delicacy of the ear;and the very passages which are now most admired in them, commonly derivetheir merit from the agreeable and measured flow of the language. 

This is an art which was in common use among the Greek Orators, about fourhundred years ago, though it has been but lately introduced among theRomans. Ennius, therefore, when he ridicules the inharmonious numbers ofhis predecessors, might be allowed to say, "_Such verses as the rustic Bards and Satyrs sung_:"

But I must not take the same liberty; especially as I cannot say with him, _Before this bold adventurer_, &c. 

(meaning himself:) nor, as he afterwards exults to the same purpose, _I first have dar'd t'unfold_, &c. 

for I have both read and heard several who were almost complete masters ofthe numerous and measured style I am speaking of: But many, who are stillabsolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridiculethey deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. I must own, indeed, that I admire the venerable patterns, of which those personspretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects Iobserve in them: but I can by no means commend the folly of those who copynothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the mostdistant resemblance in what is truly excellent. 

But if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they payno deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated fortheir learning? I will not mention _Isocrates_, and his two scholars, _Ephorus_ and _Naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving therichest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent Orators. But who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtleand acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and agreater strength of understanding, than _Aristotle_? I may add, who made awarmer opposition to the rising fame of _Isocrates_? And yet _he_, thoughhe forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. Hishearer _Theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and anexcellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and_Theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. Who, then, can havepatience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to opposethemselves to such venerable names as these? The only excuse that can bemade for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and aretherefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we arespeaking of. If this is the case with them (and I cannot think otherwise)will they reject the evidence of their own sensations? Is there nothingwhich their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harshand unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothingredundant? In dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim againsta verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yetthe bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, andare totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but Natureherself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determinethe propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute. 

Do you desire, then, my Brutus, that we should discuss the subject morefully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the otherparts of rhetoric? Or shall we content ourselves with the instructionswhich _they_ have provided for us? But wherefore do I offer such aquestion, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is thechief object of your request? We shall proceed, therefore, to give anaccount of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of_prosaic numbers_. 

The admirers of Isocrates place the first invention of numbers among thoseother improvements which do honour to his memory. For observing, say they, that the Orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while thePoets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce aspecies of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon theear, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continueduniformity of sound. This, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise;for though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in thesubject than _Isocrates_; yet the first honour of the invention belongs to_Thrasymachus_, whose style (in all his writings which are extant) is_numerous_ even to a fault. But _Gorgias_, as I have already remarked, wasthe original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have akind of spontaneous harmony, --such as a regular succession of words withthe same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting oppositecircumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them toexcess. This, however, is one of the three branches of composition above-mentioned. But each of these authors was prior to _Isocrates_: so that thepreference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not forthe _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turnof his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are morecomposed and sedate. But _Gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, andindulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess. He, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he hadfirst studied in his youth under the same _Gorgias_, who was then inThessaly, and in the last decline of life. Nay, as he advanced in years(for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and graduallyrelaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularlyinforms us in the treatise which he dedicated to Philip of Macedon, in thelatter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off thatservile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--sothat he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of hispredecessors. 

Having thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the firstcommencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the naturalsource and origin of it. But this lies so open to observation, that I amastonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, bymere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, whenthey had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to makeit obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chancealone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species ofornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would havetaken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. Forthe ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has anatural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordinglyfeel that it instantly determines what is either too short or too long, and always expects to be gratified with that which is complete and well-proportioned. Some expressions it perceives to be imperfect, andmutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defraudedof it's natural due. In others it discovers an immoderate length, and atedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgustedthan with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess isalways more offensive than a proportional defect. As versification, therefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of theear, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so inprose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidanceof nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our languageshould be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits. 

So much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. We must nextproceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the natureof it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceedsthe limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in aprofessed and accurate system of the art. For we might here inquire whatis meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence itarises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of anyvariety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when andwhere it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear. But as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods ofdisquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other moreconcise, and, I might also add, more easy and comprehensible. In theformer, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any suchthing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because nofixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long havebeen for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend forit's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it. Granting, however, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired ofwhat kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of thepoets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which ofthem may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, andsome more, while others object to none. We might then proceed to enquire(be the number of them to be admitted, more or less) whether they areequally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive, and the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether thedifferent species of Oratory should be accommodated with their differentnumbers. If the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we mustnext enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differentlyapplied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they arenot to be used so openly in prose as in verse. It might likewise be amatter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by theuse of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture ofour words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression;--and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiarprovince, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, compositionthe _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of ourlanguage, --and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of allthe rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to thosefigurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the Greeks, as Ihave before observed, are called ([Greek: _schaemaia_], ) _attitudes_ or_figures_. But to me there appears to be a real distinction between whatis agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of_expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closelyconnected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerouswithout any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently differentfrom both, as attending entirely either to the _majestic_ or _agreeable_sound of our words. Such then are the enquiries which relate to the_nature_ of prosaic harmony. 

From what has been said it is easy to infer that prose is susceptible of_number_. Our sensations tell us so: and it would be excessively unfair toreject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. Even poeticmetre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere naturaltaste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved andmethodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention tonature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensationsgave birth to art. But in verse the use of _number_ is more obvious;though some particular species of it, without the assistance of music, have the air of harmonious prose, and especially the lyric poetry, andthat even the best of the kind, which, if divested of the aid of music, would be almost as plain and naked as common language. We have severalspecimens of this nature in our own poets [Footnote: It must here beremarked, that the Romans had no lyric poet before _Horace_, who did notflourish till after the times of _Cicero_. ]; such as the following line inthe tragedy of _Thyestes_, "_Quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tardā senectute_;

"Whom shall I call thee? who in tardy age, " &c. ;

which, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken forprose. But the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblanceto the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you canscarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it isevident that it is more difficult to adapt numbers to prose than to verse. 

There are two things, however, which give a relish to our language, --well-chosen words, and harmonious _numbers_. Words may be considered as the_materials_ of language, and it is the business of _number_ to smooth andpolish them. But as in other cases, what was invented to serve ournecessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so, in the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted toexpress our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the inventionof _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. Accordingly_Herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea ofprosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random, and by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (I meanthose of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though theyhave left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management ofour style. For what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, forthat reason, always first discovered. Metaphors, therefore, and new-madeand compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowedfrom custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from ourdomestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with commonlanguage; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till everyother improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the lasttouches to the style of Eloquence. 

As it may be remarked that one sort of language is interrupted by frequentbreaks and intermissions, while another is flowing and diffusive; it isevident that the difference cannot result from the natural sounds ofdifferent letters, but from the various combinations of long and shortsyllables, with which our language, being differently blended andintermingled, will be either dull and motionless, or lively and fluent; sothat every circumstance of this nature must be regulated by _number_. Forby the assistance of _numbers_, the _period_, which I have so oftenmentioned before, pursues it's course with greater strength and freedomtill it comes to a natural pause. It is therefore plain that the style ofan Orator should be measured and harmonized by _numbers_, though entirelyfree from verse; but whether these numbers should be the same as those ofthe poets, or of a different species, is the next thing to be considered. In my opinion there can be no sort of numbers but those of the poets;because they have already specified all their different kinds with theutmost precision; for every number may be comprized in the three followingvarieties:--_viz_. A _foot_ (which is the measure we apply to numbers)must be so divided, that one part of it will be either equal to the other, or twice as long, or equal to three halves of it. Thus, in a _dactyl_(breve-macron-macron) (long-short-short) the first syllable, which is theformer part of the foot, is equal to the two others, in the _iambic_(macron-breve)(short-long) the last is double the first, and in the_paeon_ (macron-macron-macron-breve, or breve-macron-macron-macron)(short-short-short-long, or long-short-short-short) one of its parts, which isthe long syllable, is equal to two-thirds of the other. These are feetwhich are unavoidably incident to language; and a proper arrangement ofthem will produce a _numerous_ style. 

But it will here be enquired, What numbers should have the preference? Towhich I answer, They must all occur promiscuously; as is evident from oursometimes speaking verse without knowing it, which in prose is reckoned acapital fault; but in the hurry of discourse we cannot always watch andcriticise ourselves. As to _senarian_ and _hipponactic_ [Footnote: Verseschiefly composed of iambics] verses, it is scarcely possible to avoidthem; for a considerable part, even of our common language, is composed of_iambics_. To these, however, the hearer is easily reconciled; becausecustom has made them familiar to his ear. But through inattention we areoften betrayed into verses which are not so familiar;--a fault which mayeasily be avoided by a course of habitual circumspection. _Hieronymus_, aneminent Peripatetic, has collected out of the numerous writings ofIsocrates about thirty verses, most of them senarian, and some of themanapest, which in prose have a more disagreeable effect than any others. But he quotes them with a malicious partiality: for he cuts off the firstsyllable of the first word in a sentence, and annexes to the last word thefirst syllable of the following sentence; and thus he forms what is calledan _Aristophanean_ anapest, which it is neither possible nor necessary toavoid entirely. But, this redoubtable critic, as I discovered upon acloser inspection, has himself been betrayed into a senarian or iambicverse in the very paragraph in which he censures the composition of_Isocrates_. 

Upon the whole, it is sufficiently plain that prose is susceptible of_numbers_, and that the numbers of an Orator must be the same as those ofa Poet. The next thing to be considered is, what are the numbers which aremost suitable to his character, and, for that reason, should occur morefrequently than the rest? Some prefer the _Iambic_ (macron-breve)(short-long) as approaching the nearest to common language; for which reason, they say, it is generally made use of in fables and comedies, on accountof it's resemblance to conversation; and because the dactyl, which is thefavourite number of hexameters, is more adapted to a pompous style. _Ephorus_, on the other hand, declares for the paeon and the dactyl; andrejects the spondee and the trochee (long short). For as the paeonhas three short syllables, and the dactyl two, he thinks their shortnessand celerity give a brisk and lively flow to our language; and that adifferent effect would be produced by the trochee and the spondee, the oneconsisting of short syllables, and the other of long ones;--so that byusing the former, the current of our words would become too rapid, and tooheavy by employing the latter, losing, in either case, that easymoderation which best satisfies the ear. But both parties seem to beequally mistaken: for those who exclude the paeon, are not aware that theyreject the sweetest and fullest number we have. Aristotle was far fromthinking as they do: he was of opinion that heroic numbers are toosonorous for prose; and that, on the other hand, the iambic has too muchthe resemblance of vulgar talk:--and, accordingly, he recommends the stylewhich is neither too low and common, nor too lofty and extravagant, butretains such a just proportion of dignity, as to win the attention, andexcite the admiration of the hearer. He, therefore, calls the _trochee_(which has precisely the same quantity as the _choree_) _the rhetoricaljigg_ [Footnote: _Cordacem appellat_. The _cordax_ was a lascivious dancevery full of agitation. ]; because the shortness and rapidity of it'ssyllables are incompatible with the majesty of Eloquence. For this reasonhe recommends the _paeon_, and says that every person makes use of it, even without being sensible when he does so. He likewise observes that itis a proper medium between the different feet above-mentioned:--theproportion between the long and short syllables, in every foot, beingeither sesquiplicate, duple, or equal. 

The authors, therefore, whom I mentioned before attended merely to theeasy flow of our language, without any regard to it's dignity. For theiambic and the dactyl are chiefly used in poetry; so that to avoidversifying in prose, we must shun, as much as possible, a continuedrepetition of either; because the language of prose is of a differentcast, and absolutely incompatible with verse. As the paeon, therefore, isof all other feet the most improper for poetry, it may, for that reason bemore readily admitted into prose. But as to _Ephorus_, he did not reflectthat even the _spondee_, which he rejects, is equal in time to hisfavourite dactyl; because he supposed that feet were to be measured not bythe quantity, but the number of their syllables;--a mistake of which he isequally guilty when he excludes the _trochee_, which, in time andquantity, is precisely equal to the iambic; though it is undoubtedlyfaulty at the end of a period, which always terminates more agreeably in along syllable than a short one. As to what Aristotle has said of the_paeon_, the same has likewise been said by _Theophrastus_ and_Theodectes_. 

But, for my part, I am rather of opinion that our language should beintermingled and diversified with all the varieties of number; for shouldwe confine ourselves to any particular feet, it would be impossible toescape the censure of the hearer; because our style should neither be soexactly measured as that of the poets, nor entirely destitute of number, like that of the common people. The former, as being too regular anduniform, betrays an appearance of art; and the other, which is as much tooloose and undetermined, has the air of ordinary talk; so that we receiveno pleasure from the one, and are absolutely disgusted with the other. Ourstyle, therefore, as I have just observed, should be so blended anddiversified with different numbers, as to be neither too vague andunrestrained, nor too openly numerous, but abound most in the paeon (somuch recommended by the excellent author above-mentioned) though still inconjunction with many other feet which he entirely omits. 

But we must now consider what number like so many dashes of purple, shouldtincture and enrich the rest, and to what species of style they are eachof them best adapted. The iambic, then, should be the leading number inthose subjects which require a plain and simple style;--the paeon in suchas require more compass and elevation; and the dactyl is equallyapplicable to both. So that in a discourse of any length and variety, itwill be occasionally necessary to blend and intermingle them all. By thismeans, our endeavours to modulate our periods, and captivate the ear, willbe most effectually concealed; especially, if we maintain a suitabledignity both of language and sentiment. For the hearer will naturallyattend to these (I mean our words and sentiments) and to them aloneattribute the pleasure he receives; so that while he listens to these withadmiration, the harmony of our numbers will escape his notice: though itmust indeed be acknowledged that the former would have their charmswithout the assistance of the latter. But the flow of our numbers is notto be so exact (I mean in prose, for in poetry the case is different) asthat nothing may exceed the bounds of regularity; for this would be tocompose a poem. On the contrary, if our language neither limps norfluctuates, but keeps an even and a steady pace, it is sufficiently_numerous_; and it accordingly derives the title, not from its consistingentirely of numbers, but from its near approach to a numerous form. Thisis the reason why it is more difficult to make elegant prose, than to makeverses; because there are fixed and invariable rules for the latter;whereas nothing is determined in the former, but that the current of ourlanguage should be neither immoderate nor defective, nor loose andunconfined. It cannot be supposed, therefore, to admit of regular beatsand divisions, like a piece of music; but it is only necessary that thegeneral compass and arrangement of our words should be properly restrainedand limited, --a circumstance which must be left entirely to the decisionof the ear. 

Another question which occurs before us, is--whether an attention to ournumbers should be extended to every part of a sentence, or only to thebeginning and the end. Most authors are of opinion that it is onlynecessary that our periods should end well, and have a numerous cadence. It is true, indeed, that this ought to be principally attended to, but notsolely: for the whole compass of our periods ought likewise to beregulated, and not totally neglected. As the ear, therefore, alwaysdirects it's view to the close of a sentence, and there fixes it'sattention, it is by no means proper that this should be destitute of_number_: but it must also be observed that a period, from it's firstcommencement, should run freely on, so as to correspond to the conclusion;and the whole advance from the beginning with such an easy flow, as tomake a natural, and a kind of voluntary pause. To those who have beenwe'll practised in the art, and who have both written much; and oftenattempted to discourse _extempore_ with the same accuracy which theyobserve in their writings, this will be far less difficult than isimagined. For every sentence is previously formed and circumscribed in themind of the Speaker, and is then immediately attended by the proper wordsto express it, which the same mental faculty (than which there is nothingmore lively and expeditious) instantly dismisses, and sends off each toits proper post: but, in different sentences, their particular order andarrangement will be differently terminated; though, in every sentence, thewords both in the beginning and the middle of it, should have a constantreference to the end. Our language, for instance, must sometimes advancewith rapidity, and at other times it's pace must be moderate and easy; sothat it will be necessary at the very beginning of a sentence, to resolveupon the manner in which you would have it terminate; but we must avoidthe least appearance of poetry, both in our numbers, and in the otherornaments of language; though it is true, indeed, that the labours of theOrator must be conducted on the same principles as those of the Poet. Forin each we have the same materials to work upon, and a similar art ofmanaging them; the materials being words, and the art of managing themrelating, in both cases, to the manner in which they ought to be disposed. The words also in each may be divided into three classes, --the__metaphorical_, --the new-coined, --and the antique;--for at present wehave no concern with words _proper_:--and three parts may also bedistinguished in the art of disposing them; which, I have alreadyobserved, are _juncture_, _concinnity_, and _number_. The poets make useboth of one and the other more frequently, and with greater liberty thanwe do; for they employ the _tropes_ not only much oftener, but more boldlyand openly; and they introduce _antique_ words with a higher taste, andnew ones with less reserve. The same may be said in their numbers, in theuse of which they are subjected to invariable rules, which they arescarcely ever allowed to transgress. The two arts, therefore, are to beconsidered neither as wholly distinct, nor perfectly conjoined. This isthe reason why our numbers are not to be so conspicuous in prose as inverse; and that in prose, what is called a _numerous_ style, does notalways become so by the use of numbers, but sometimes either by theconcinnity of our language, or the smooth juncture of our words. 

To conclude this head; If it should be enquired, "What are the numbers tobe used in prose?" I answer, "_All_; though some are certainly better, andmore adapted to it's character than others. "--If "_Where_ is their properseat?"--"In the different quantity of our syllables:"--If "From whencetheir _origin_?"--"From the sole pleasure of the ear:"--If "What themethod of blending and intermingling them?"--"This shall be explained inthe sequel, because it properly relates to the manner of using them, whichwas the fourth and last article in my division of the subject. " If it befarther enquired, "For what purpose they are employed?" I answer, --"Togratify the ear:"--If "_When_?" I reply, "At all times:"--If "In what partof a sentence?" "Through the whole length of it:"--and if "What is thecircumstance which gives them a pleasing effect?" "The same as in poeticalcompositions, whose metre is regulated by art, though the ear alone, without the assistance of art, can determine it's limits by the naturalpowers of sensation. " Enough, therefore, has been said concerning thenature and properties of _number_. The next article to be considered isthe manner in which our numbers should be employed, --a circumstance whichrequires to be accurately discussed. 

Here it is usual to enquire, whether it is necessary to attend to ournumbers through the whole compass of a period, [Footnote: Our author hereinforms us, that what the Greeks called [Greek: periodos], a _period_, wasdistinguished among the Romans by the words _ambitus, circuitus, comprehensio, continuatio_, and _circumscriptio_. As I thought this remarkwould appear much better in the form of a note, than in the body of thework, I have introduced it accordingly. ] or only at the beginning or endof it, or equally in both. In the next place, as _exact number_ seems tobe one thing, and that which is merely _numerous_ another, it might beenquired wherein lies the difference. We might likewise consider whetherthe members of a sentence should all indifferently be of the same length, whatever be the numbers they are composed of;--or whether, on thisaccount, they should not be sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter;--andwhen, and for what reasons, they should be made so, and of what numbersthey should be composed;--whether of several sorts, or only of one; andwhether of equal or unequal numbers;--and upon what occasions either theone or the other of these are to be used;-and what numbers accord besttogether, and in what order; or whether, in this respect, there is nodifference between them;--and (which has still a more immediate referenceto our subject) by what means our style may be rendered _numerous_. Itwill likewise be necessary to specify the rise and origin of a_periodical_ form of language, and what degree of compass should beallowed to it. After this, we may consider the members or divisions of aperiod, and enquire of how many kinds, and of what different lengths theyare; and, if they vary in these respects, _where_ and _when_ eachparticular sort is to be employed: and, in the last place, the _use_ andapplication of the whole is to be fully explained;--a very extensivesubject, and which is capable of being accommodated not only to one, butto many different occasions. But without adverting to particulars, we maydiscuss the subject at large in such a manner as to furnish a satisfactoryanswer in all subordinate cases. 

Omitting, therefore, every other species of composition, we shall attendto that which is peculiar to forensic causes. For in those performanceswhich are of a different kind, such as history, panegyric, and alldiscourses which are merely ornamental, every sentence should beconstructed after the exact manner of _Isocrates_ and _Theopompus_; andwith that regular compass, and measured flow of language, that our wordsmay constantly run within the limits prescribed by art, and pursue auniform course, till the period is completed. We may, therefore, observethat after the invention of this, _periodical_ form, no writer of anyaccount has made a discourse which was intended as a mere display ofornament, and not for the service of the Forum, without _squaring_ hislanguage, (if I may so express myself) and confining every sentence of itto the strictest laws of _number_. For as, in this case, the hearer has nomotive to alarm his suspicions against the artifice of the speaker, hewill rather think himself obliged to him than otherwise, for the pains hetakes to amuse and gratify his ear. But, in forensic causes, this accuratespecies of composition is neither to be wholly adopted, nor entirelyrejected. For if we pursue it too closely, it will create a satiety, andour attention to it will be discovered by the most illiterate observer. Wemay add, it will check the pathos and force of action, restrain thesensibility of the Speaker, and destroy all appearance of truth and opendealing. But as it will sometimes be necessary to adopt it, we mustconsider _when_, and _how long_, this ought to be done, and how many waysit may be changed and varied. 

A _numerous_ style, then, may be properly employed, either when any thingis to be commended in a free and ornamental manner, (as in my secondInvective against _Verres_, where I spoke in praise of _Sicily_, and in mySpeech before the Senate, in which I vindicated the honour of myconsulship;)--or; in the next place, when a narrative is to be deliveredwhich requires more dignity than pathos, (as in my fourth Invective, whereI described the Ceres of the Ennensians, the Diana of the Segestani, andthe situation of Syracuse. ) It is likewise often allowable to speak in anumerous and flowing style, when a material circumstance is to beamplified. If I myself have not succeeded in this so well as might bewished, I have at least attempted it very frequently; and it is stillvisible in many of my Perorations, that I have exerted all the talents Iwas master of for that purpose. But this will always have most efficacy, when the Speaker has previously possessed himself of the hearer'sattention, and got the better of his judgment. For then he is no longerapprehensive of any artifice to mislead him; but hears every thing with afavourable ear, wishes the Orator to proceed, and, admiring the force ofhis Eloquence, has no inclination to censure it. 

But this measured and numerous flow of language is never to be continuedtoo long, I will not say in the peroration, (of which the hearer himselfwill always be a capable judge) but in any other part of a discourse: for, except in the cases above-mentioned, in which I have shewn it isallowable, our style must be wholly confined to those clauses or divisionswhich we erroneously call _incisa_ and _membra_; but the Greeks, with morepropriety, the _comma_ and _colon_ [Footnote: The ancients apply theseterms to the sense, and not to any points of distinction. A very shortmember, whether simple or compound, with them is a _comma_; and a longer, a _colon_; for they have no such term as a _semicolon_. Besides, they calla very short sentence, whether simple or compound, a _comma_; and one ofsomewhat a greater length, a _colon_. And therefore, if a person expressedhimself either of these ways, in any considerable number of sentencestogether, he was said to speak by _commas_, or _colons_. But a sentencecontaining more words than will consist with either of these terms, theycall a simple _period_; the least compound period with them requiring thelength of two colons. 

Ward's Rhetoric, volume 1st, page 344. ]. For it is impossible that thenames of things should be rightly applied, when the things themselves arenot sufficiently understood: and as we often make use of metaphoricalterms, either for the sake of ornament, or to supply the place of properones, so in other arts, when we have occasion to mention any thing which(through our unacquaintance with it) has not yet received a name, we areobliged either to invent a new one, or to borrow it from somethingsimilar. We shall soon consider what it is to speak in _commas_ and_colons_, and the proper method of doing it: but we must first attend tothe various numbers by which the cadence of our periods should bediversified. 

Our numbers will advance more rapidly by the use of short feet, and morecoolly and sedately by the use of long ones. The former are best adaptedto a warm and spirited style, and the latter to sober narratives andexplanations. But there are several numbers for concluding a period, oneof which (called the _dichoree_, or double _choree_, and consisting of along and a short syllable repeated alternately) is much in vogue with theAsiatics; though among different people the same feet are distinguished bydifferent names. The _dichoree_, indeed, is not essentially bad for theclose of a sentence: but in prosaic numbers nothing can be more faultythan a continued or frequent repetition of the same cadence: as the_dichoree_, therefore, is a very sonorous number, we should be the moresparing in the use of it, to prevent a satiety. _C. Carbo_, the son of_Caius_, and a Tribune of the people, once said in a public trial in whichI was personally engaged, --"_O Marce Druse, Patrem appello_;" where youmay observe two _commas_, each consisting of two feet. He then made use ofthe two following _colons_, each consisting of three feet, --"_Tu diceresolebas, sacram esse Rempublicam:"--and afterwards of the period, --"_Quicunque eam violavissent, ab omnibus esse ei poenas persolutas_" whichends with a _dichoree_; for it is immaterial whether the last syllable islong or short. He added, "_Patris dictum sapiens, temeritas filiicomprobavit_" concluding here also with a _dichoree_; which was receivedwith such a general burst of applause, as perfectly astonished me. But wasnot this the effect of _number_?--Only change the order of the words, andsay, --"_Comprobavit filii temeritas_" and the spirit of them will be lost, though the word _temeritas_ consists of three short syllables and a longone, which is the favourite number of Aristotle, from whom, however, Ihere beg leave to dissent. The words and sentiments are indeed the fame inboth cases; and yet, in the latter, though the understanding is satisfied, the ear is not. But these harmonious cadences are not to be repeated toooften: for, in the first place, our _numbers_ will be soon discovered, --inthe next, they will excite the hearer's disgust, --and, at last, beheartily despised on account of the apparent facility with which they areformed. 

But there are several other cadences which will have a numerous andpleasing effect: for even the _cretic_, which consists of a long, a short, and a long syllable, and it's companion the _paeon_, which is equal to itin quantity, though it exceeds it in the number of syllables, is reckoneda proper and a very useful ingredient in harmonious prose: especially asthe latter admits of two varieties, as consisting either of one long andthree short syllables, which will be lively enough at the beginning of asentence, but extremely flat at the end;--or of three short syllables anda long one, which was highly approved of by the ancients at the _close_ ofa sentence, and which I would not wholly reject, though I give thepreference to others. Even the sober _spondee_ is not to be entirelydiscarded; for though it consists of two long syllables, and for thatreason may seem rather dull and heavy, it has yet a firm and steady step, which gives it an air of dignity, and especially in the _comma_ and the_colon_; so that it sufficiently compensates for the slowness of it'smotion, by it's peculiar weight and solemnity. When I speak of feet at theclose of a period, I do not mean precisely the last. I would beunderstood, at least, to include the foot which immediately precedes it;and, in many cases, even the foot before _that_. The _iambic_, therefore, which consists of a long syllable and a short one, and is equal in time, though not in the number of it's syllables, to a _choree_, which has threeshort ones; or even the _dactyl_, which consists of one long and two shortsyllables, will unite agreeably enough with the last foot of a sentence, when that foot is either a _choree_ or a _spondee_; for it is immaterialwhich of them is employed. But the three feet I am mentioning, are neitherof them very proper for closing a period, (that is, to form the last footof it) unless when a _dactyl_ is substituted for a _cretic_, for you mayuse either of them at pleasure; because, even in verse, it is of noconsequence whether the last syllable is long or short. He, therefore, whorecommended the _paeon_, as having the long syllable last, was certainlyguilty of an oversight; because the quantity of the last syllable is neverregarded. The _paeon_, however, as consisting of four syllables, isreckoned by some to be only a _number_, and not a _foot_. But call itwhich you please, it is in general, what all the ancients have representedit, (such as _Aristotle, Theophrastus, Theodectes_, and _Euphorus_) thefittest of all others both for the beginning and the middle of a period. They are likewise of opinion, that it is equally proper at the end; where, in my opinion, the _cretic_ deserves the preference. The _dochimus_, whichconsists of five syllables, (i. E. A short and two long ones, and a short, and a long one, as in _amicos tenes_) may be used indifferently in anypart of a sentence, provided it occurs but once: for if it is continued orrepeated, our attention to our numbers will be discovered, and alarm thesuspicion of the hearer. On the other hand, if we properly blend andintermingle the several varieties above-mentioned, our design will not beso readily noticed; and we shall also prevent that satiety which wouldarise from an elaborate uniformity of cadence. 

But the harmony of language does not result entirely from the use of_numbers_, but from the _juncture_ and _composition_ of our words; andfrom that neatness and _concinnity_ of expression which I have alreadymentioned. By _composition_, I here mean when our words are so judiciouslyconnected as to produce an agreeable sound (independent of _numbers_)which rather appears to be the effect of nature than of art; as in thefollowing passage from Crassus, _Nam ubi lubido dominatur, innocentiaeleve praesidium est_ [Footnote: In the sentence which is here quoted fromCrassus, every word which ends with a consonant is immediately succeededby another which begins with a vowel; and, _vice versa_, if the precedingword ends with a vowel, the next begins with a consonant. ]: for here themere order in which the words are connected, produces a harmony of sound, without any visible attention of the Speaker. When the ancients, therefore, (I mean _Herodotus_, and _Thucydides_, and all who flourishedin the same age) composed a numerous and a musical period, it must ratherbe attributed to the casual order of their words, than to the labour andartifice of the writer. 

But there are likewise certain forms of expression, which have such anatural concinnity, as will necessarily have a similar effect to that ofregular numbers. For when parallel circumstances are compared, or oppositeones contrasted, or words of the same termination are placed in a regularsuccesion, they seldom fail to produce a numerous cadence. But I havealready treated of these, and subjoined a few examples; so that we arehereby furnished with an additional and a copious variety of means toavoid the uniformity of cadence above-mentioned; especially as thesemeasured forms of expression may be occasionally relaxed and dilated. There is, however, a material difference between a style which is merely_numerous_, (or, in other words, which has a moderate resemblance to_metre_) and that which is entirely composed of _numbers_: the latter isan insufferable fault; but our language, without the former, would beabsolutely vague, unpolished, and dissipated. 

But as a numerous style (strictly so called) is not frequently, and indeedbut seldom admissible in forensic causes, --it seems necessary to enquire, in the next place, what are those _commas_ and _colons_ before-mentioned, and which, in real causes, should occupy the major part of an Oration. The_period_, or complete sentence, is usually composed of four divisions, which are called _members_, (or _colons_) that it may properly fill theear, and be neither longer nor shorter than is requisite for that purpose. But it sometimes, or rather frequently happens, that a sentence eitherfalls short of, or exceeds the limits of a regular period, to prevent itfrom fatiguing the ear on the one hand, or disappointing it on the other. What I mean is to recommend an agreeable mediocrity: for we are nottreating of verse, but of rhetorical prose, which is confessedly more freeand unconfined. A full period, then, is generally composed of four parts, which may be compared to as many hexameter verses, each of which havetheir proper points, or particles of continuation, by which they areconnected so as to form a perfect period. But when we speak by _colons_, we interupt their union, and, as often as occasion requires (which indeedwill frequently be the case) break off with ease from this laboured andsuspicious flow of language; but yet nothing should be so numerous inreality as that which appears to be least so, and yet has a forcibleeffect. Such is the following passage in Crassus:--"_Missos faciantpatronos; ipsi prodeant_. " "Let them dismiss their patrons: let themanswer for themselves. " Unless "_ipsi prodeant_" was pronounced after apause, the hearer must have discovered a complete iambic verse. It wouldhave had a better cadence in prose if he had said "_prodeant ipsi_. " But Iam only to consider the species, and not the cadence of the sentence. Hegoes on, "_Cur clandestinis consiliis nos oppugnant? cur de perfugisnostris copias comparant contra nos_?" "Why do they attack us byclandestine measures? why do they collect forces against us from our owndeserters?" In the former passage there are two _commas_: in the latter hefirst makes use of the _colon_, and afterwards of the _period_: but theperiod is not a long one, as only consisting of two _colons_, and thewhole terminates in _spondees_. In this manner Crassus generally expressedhimself; and I much approve his method. But when we speak either in_commas_, or _colons_, we should be very attentive to the harmony of theircadence: as in the following instance. --"_Domus tibi deerat? at habebas. Pecunia superabat? at egebas_. " "Was you without a habitation? You had ahouse of your own. Was your pocket well provided? You was not master of afarthing. " These are four _commas_; but the two following members are both_colons_;--"_Incurristi omens in columnas, in alienos insanus insanisti_. "

"You rushed like a madman upon your best supporters; you vented your furyon your enemies withput mercy. " The whole is afterwards supported by afull period, as by a solid basis;--"Depressam, caecam, jacentem domum, pluris quam te, et fortunas tuas aestimāsti. " "You have shewn more regardto an unprosperous, an obscure, and a fallen family, than to your ownsafety and reputation. " This sentence ends with a _dichoree_, but thepreceeding one in a _double spondee_. For in those sentences which are tobe used like daggers for close-fighting, their very shortness makes ournumbers less exceptionable. They frequently consist of a single number;--generally of _two_, with the addition perhaps of half a foot to each: andvery seldom of more than three. To speak in _commas_ or _colons_ has avery good effect in real causes; and especially in those parts of anOration where it is your business either to prove or refute: as in mysecond defence of Cornelius, where I exclaimed, "O callidos homines! O remexcogitatam! O ingenia metuenda!" "What admirable schemers! what a curiouscontrivance! what formidable talents!" Thus far I spoke in _colons_; andafterwards by _commas_; and then returned to the colon, in "_Testes darevolumus_, " "We are willing to produce our witnesses. " This was succeededby the following _period_, consisting of two _colons_, which is theshortest that can be formed, --"_Quem, quaeso, nostrūm sesellit ita vosesse facturos?_" "Which of us, think you, had not the sense to foreseethat you would proceed in this manner?"

There is no method of expressing ourselves which, if properly timed, ismore agreeable or forcible, than these rapid turns, which are completed intwo or three words, and sometimes in a single one; especially, when theyare properly diversified, and intermingled here and there with a_numerous_ period; which _Egesias_ avoids with such a ridiculous nicety, that while he affects to imitate _Lysias_ (who was almost a second_Demosthenes_) he seems to be continually cutting capers, and clippingsentence after sentence. He is as frivolous in his sentiments as in hislanguage: so that no person who is acquainted with his writings, need toseek any farther for a coxcomb. But I have selected several examples fromCrassus, and a few of my own, that any person, who is so inclined, mayhave an opportunity of judging with his own ears, what is really_numerous_, as well in the shortest as in any other kind of sentences. 

Having, therefore, treated of a _numerous_ style more copiously than anyauthor before me, I shall now proceed to say something of it's _utility_. For to speak handsomely, and like an Orator (as no one, my Brutus, knowsbetter than yourself) is nothing more than to express the choicestsentiments in the finest language. The noblest thoughts will be of littleservice to an orator, unless he is able to communicate them in a correctand agreeable style: nor will the splendor of our expressions appear to aproper advantage, unless they are carefully and judiciously ranged. Permitme to add, that the beauty of both will be considerably heightened by theharmony of our numbers:--such numbers (for I cannot repeat it too often)as are not only not cemented together, like those of the poets, but whichavoid all appearance of metre, and have as little resemblance to it aspossible; though it is certainly true that the numbers themselves are thesame, not only of the Poets and Orators, but of all in general whoexercise the faculty of speech, and, indeed, of every instrument whichproduces a sound whose time can be measured by the ear. It is owingentirely to the different arrangement of our feet that a sentence assumeseither the easy air of prose, or the uniformity of verse. Call it, therefore, by what name you please (_Composition, Perfection_, or_Number_) it is a necessary restraint upon our language; not only (as_Aristotle_ and _Theophrastus_ have observed) to prevent our sentences(which should be limited neither by the breath of the speaker, nor thepointing of a transcriber, but by the sole restraint of _number_) fromrunning on without intermission like a babbling current of water; butchiefly, because our language, when properly measured, has a much greatereffect than when it is loose and unconfined. For as Wrestlers andGladiators, whether they parry or make an assault, have a certain grace intheir motions, so that every effort which contributes to the defence orthe victory of the combatants, presents an agreeable attitude to the eye:so the powers of language can neither give nor evade an important blow, unless they are gracefully exerted. That style, therefore, which is notregulated by _numbers_, is to me as unbecoming as the motions of aGladiator who has not been properly trained and exercised: and so far isour language from being _enervated_ by a skilful arrangement of our words(as is pretended by those who, for want either of proper instructors, capacity, or diligence, have not been able to attain it) that, on thecontrary, without this, it is impossible it should have any force orefficacy. 

But it requires a long and attentive course of practice to avoid theblemishes of those who were unacquainted with this numerous species ofcomposition, so as not to transpose our words too openly to assist thecadence and harmony of our periods; which _L. Caelius Antipater_, in theIntroduction to his Punic War, declares he would never attempt, unlesswhen compelled by necessity. "_O virum simplicem_, " (says he, speaking ofhimself) "_qui nos nihil celat; sapientem, qui serviendum necessitatiputet_. " "O simple man, who has not the skill his art to conceal; and yetto the rigid laws of necessity he has the wisdom to submit. " But he wastotally unskilled in composition. By us, however, both in writing andspeaking, necessity is never admitted as a valid plea; for, in fact, thereis no such thing as an absolute constraint upon the order and arrangementof our words; and, if there was, it is certainly unnecessary to own it. But _Antipater_, though he requests the indulgence of Laelius, to whom hededicates his work, and attempts to excuse himself, frequently transposeshis words without contributing in the least either to the harmony, oragreeable cadence of his periods. 

There are others, and particularly the _Asiatics_, who are such slaves to_number_, as to insert words which have no use nor meaning to fill up thevacuities in a sentence. There are likewise some who, in imitation of_Hegesias_ (a notorious trifler as well in this as in every other respect)curtail and mince their numbers, and are thus betrayed into the low andpaltry style of the Sicilians. Another fault in composition is that whichoccurs in the speeches of _Hierocles_ and _Menecles_, two brothers, whomay be considered as the princes of Asiatic Eloquence, and, in my opinion, are by no means contemptible: for though they deviate from the style ofnature, and the strict laws of Atticism, yet they abundantly compensatethe defect by the richness and fertility of their language. But they haveno variety of cadence, and their sentences are almost always terminated inthe same manner. He therefore, who carefully avoids these blemishes, andwho neither transposes his words too openly, --nor inserts any thingsuperfluous or unmeaning to fill up the chasms of a period, --nor curtailsand clips his language, so as to interrupt and enervate the force of it, --nor confines himself to a dull uniformity of cadence, --_he_ may justly besaid to avoid the principal and most striking defects of prosaic harmony. As to its positive graces, these we have already specified; and fromthence the particular blemishes which are opposite to each, will readilyoccur to the attentive reader. 

Of what consequence it is to regulate the structure of our language, maybe easily tried by selecting a well-wrought period from some Orator ofreputation, and changing the arrangement of the words; [Footnote:Professor _Ward_ has commented upon an example of this kind from thepreface to the Vth volume of the Spectator:--"_You have acted in so muchconsistency with yourself, and promoted the interests of your country inso uniform a manner; that even those, who would misrepresent your generousdesigns for the public good, cannot but approve the steadiness andintredipity, with which you pursue them_. " I think, says the Doctor, thismay be justly esteemed an handsome period. It begins with ease, risesgradually till the voice is inflected, then sinks again, and ends with ajust cadency, And perhaps there is not a word in it, whole situation wouldbe altered to an advantage. Let us now but shift the place of one word inthe last member, and we shall spoil the beauty of the whole sentence. Forif, instead of saying, as it now stands, _cannot but approve thesteadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_; we put it thus, _cannot but approve the steadiness and intrepidity which you pursue themwith_; the cadency will be flat and languid, and the harmony of the periodentirely lost. Let us try it again by altering the place of the two lastmembers, which at present stand in this order, _that even those who wouldmisrepresent your generous designs for the public good, cannot but approvethe steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them_. Now if theformer member be thrown last, they will run thus, _that even those cannotbut approve the steadiness and intrepidity, with which you pursue them, who would misrepresent your generous designs for the public good_. Herethe sense is much obscured by the inversion of the relative _them_, whichought to refer to something that went before, and not to the words_generous designs_, which in this situation of the members are placedafter it. WARD'S Rhetoric. Vol. 1, p. 338, 339. ] the beauty of it wouldthen be mangled and destroyed. Suppose, for instance, we take thefollowing passage from my Defence of _Cornelius, --"Neque me divitaemovent, quibus omnes Africanos et Laelios, multi venalitii mercatoresquesuperarunt. _" "Nor am I dazzled by the splendor of wealth, in which manyretailers, and private tradesmen have outvied all the _Africani_ and the_Lelii_" Only invert the order a little, and say, --"_Multi superāruntmercatores, venatitiique_, " and the harmony of the period will be loft. Try the experiment on the next sentence;--"_Neque vestes, aut celatumaurum, & argentum, quo nostros veteres Marcellos, Maximosque multi eunuchie Syriā Egyptoque vicerunt_:" Nor do. I pay the least regard to costlyhabits, or magnificent services of plate, in which many eunuchs, importedfrom Syria and Egypt, have far surpassed the illustrious _Marcelli_, andthe _Maximi_. Alter the disposition of the words into, "_vicerunt eunuchie Syria, Egyptoque, _" and the whole beauty of the sentence will bedestroyed. Take a third passage from the same paragraph;--"_Neque veroornamenta ista villarum, quibus Paulum & L. Mummium, qui rebus his urbem, Italiamque omnem reserserunt, ab aliquo video perfacile Deliaco aut Syropotuisse superari:"--"Nor the splendid ornaments of a rural villa, inwhich I daily behold every paltry Delian and Syrian outvying the dignityof Paulus and Lucius Mummius, who, by their victories, supplied the wholecity, and indeed every part of Italy, with a super- fluity of theseglittering trifles!" Only change the latter part of the sentence into, --"_potuisse superari ab aliquo Syro aut Deliaco, _" and you will see, thoughthe meaning and the words are still the same, that, by making this slightalteration in the order, and breaking the form of the period, the wholeforce and spirit of it will be lost. 

On the other hand, take one of the broken sentences of a writer unskilledin composition, and make the smallest alteration in the arrangement of thewords, --and that which before was loose and disordered, will assume ajust and a regular form. Let us, for instance, take the following passagefrom the speech of Gracchus to the Censors;--"_Abesse non potest, quinejusdem hominis fit, probos improbare, qui improbos probet_;" "There is nopossibility of doubting that the same person who is an enemy to virtue, must be a friend to vice. " How much better would the period haveterminated if he had said, --"_quin ejusdem hominis fit, qui improbosprobet, probos improbare_!"--"that the same person who is a friend tovice, must be an enemy to virtue!" There is no one who would object to thelast:--nay, it is impossible that any one who was able to speak thus, should have been willing to express himself otherwise. But those who havepretended to speak in a different manner, had not skill enough to speak asthey ought; and for that reason, truly, we must applaud them for their_Attic_ taste;--as if the great DEMOSTHENES could speak like an _Asiatic_[Footnote: Quasi vero Trallianus fuerit Demosthenes. ] _Trallianus_signifies an inhabitant of _Tralles_, a city in the lesser Asia, between_Caria_ and _Lydia_. The Asiatics, in the estimation of Cicero, were notdistinguished by the delicacy of their taste. , --that Demosthenes, whosethunder would have lost half it's force, if it's flight had not beenaccelerated by the rapidity of his numbers. 

But if any are better pleased with a broken and dissipated style, let themfollow their humour, provided they condescend to counterbalance it by theweight, and dignity of their sentiments: in the same manner, as if aperson should dash to pieces the celebrated shield of _Phidias_, though hewould destroy the symmetry of the whole, the fragments would still retaintheir separate beauty;--or, as in the history of Thucydides, though wediscover no harmony in the structure of his periods, there are yet manybeauties which excite our admiration. But these triflers, when theypresent us with one of their rugged and broken sentences, in which thereis neither a thought, nor word, but what is low and puerile, appear to me(if I may venture on a comparison which is not indeed very elevated, butis strictly applicable to the case in hand) to have untied a besom, thatwe may contemplate the scattered twigs. If, however, they wish to convinceus that they really despise the species of composition which I have nowrecommended, let them favour us with a few lines in the taste ofIsocrates, or such as we find in the orations of _Aeschines_ and_Demosthenes_. I will then believe they decline the use of it, not from aconsciousness of their inability to put it in practice, but from a realconviction of it's futility; or, at least, I will engage to find a person, who, on the same condition, will undertake either to speak or write, inany language they may please to fix upon, in the very manner they propose. For it is much easier to disorder a good period, than to harmonize a badone. 

But, to speak my whole meaning at once, to be scrupulously attentive tothe measure and harmony of our periods, without a proper regard to oursentiments, is absolute madness:--and, on the other hand, to speaksensibly and judiciously, without attending to the arrangement of ourwords, and the regularity of our periods, is (at the best) to speak veryawkwardly; but it is such a kind of awkwardness that those who are guiltyof it, may not only escape the title of blockheads, but pass for men ofgood-sense and understanding;--a character which those speakers who arecontented with it, are heartily welcome to enjoy! But an Orator who isexpected not only to merit the approbation, but to excite the wonder, theacclamations, and the plaudits of those who hear him, must excel in everypart of Eloquence, and be so thoroughly accomplished, that it would be adisgrace to him that any thing should be either seen or heard with greaterpleasure than himself. 

 * * * * *

Thus, my Brutus, I have given you my opinion of a complete Orator; whichyou are at liberty either to adopt or reject, as your better judgmentshall incline you. If you see reason to think differently, I shall have noobjection to it; nor so far indulge my vanity as to presume that mysentiments, which I have so freely communicated in the present Essay, aremore just and accurate than yours. For it is very possible not only thatyou and I may have different notions, but that what appears true even tomyself at one time, may appear otherwise at another. Nor only in thepresent case, which be determined by the taste of the multitude, and thecapricious pleasure of the ear (which are, perhaps, the most uncertainjudges we can fix upon)--but in the most important branches of science, have I yet been able to discover a surer rule to direct my judgment, thanto embrace that which has the greatest appearance of probability: for_Truth_ is covered with too thick a veil to be distinguished to acertainty. I request, therefore, if what I have advanced should not havethe happiness to merit your approbation, that you will be so much myfriend as to conclude, either that the talk I have attempted isimpracticable, or that my unwillingness to disoblige you has betrayed meinto the rash presumption of undertaking a subject to which my abilitiesare unequal.