Cicero\'s Brutus or History of Famous Orators; also His Orator, or Accomplished Speaker.

M >> Marcus Tullius Cicero >> Cicero\'s Brutus or History of Famous Orators; also His Orator, or Accomplished Speaker.

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

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

The first character, then, to be described, is the Orator who, according
to some, is the only one that has any just pretensions to _Atticism_. He
is distinguished by his modest simplicity; and as he imitates the language
of 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 persuade
themselves 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 of
Cicero, 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 ordinary
reader, they appear to him so natural and unlaboured, that he immediately
resolves 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 with
judgment, are not beautiful. He, it is true, expresses himself plainly,
but flatly withal. Again, if a man of vivacity takes it into his head to
write this way, what self-denial must he undergo, when bright points of
wit occur to his fancy? How difficult will he find it to reject florid
phrases, and pretty embellishments of style? So true it is, that
simplicity of all things is the hardest to be copied, and case to be
acquired with the greatest labour."];--and the unaffected simplicity of
his language appears very imitable to an ignorant observer; though nothing
will be found less so by him who makes the trial. For, if I may so express
myself, though his veins are not over-stocked with blood, his juices must
be found and good; and though he is not possessed of any extraordinary
strength, he must have a healthy constitution. For this purpose, we must
first release him from the shackles of _number_; for there is (you know) a
kind of _number_ to be observed by an Orator, which we shall treat of in
the sequel:--but this is to be used in a different species of Eloquence,
and to be relinquished in the present. His language, therefore, must be
free and unconfined, but not loose and irregular, that he may appear to
walk at ease, without reeling or tottering. He will not be at the pains to
cement word to word with a scrupulous exactness: for those breaks which
are 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 felicitous
about things than words. But though he is not to labour at a measured
flow, and a masterly arrangement of his words, he must be careful in other
respects. For even these limited and unaspiring talents are not to be
employed carelessly, but with a kind of industrious negligence: for as
some females are most becoming in a dishabille, so this artless kind of
Eloquence has her charms, though she appears in an undress. There is
something in both which renders them agreeable, without striking the eye.
Here, therefore, all the glitter of ornament, like that of jewels and
diamonds, must be laid aside; nor must we apply even the crisping-iron to
adjust the hair. There must be no colouring, no artful washes to heighten
the complexion: but elegance and neatness must be our only aim. Our style
muft 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 by
Theophrastus to be one of the chief beauties of composition;--I mean that
sweet and flowing ornament, a plentiful intermixture of lively sentiments,
which seem to result from a natural fund of good sense, and are peculiarly
graceful in the Orator we are now describing. But he will be very moderate
in using the _furniture_ of Eloquence: for (if I may be allowed such an
expression) there is a species of furniture belonging to us, which
consists in the various ornaments of sentiment and language. The ornaments
of language are two-fold; the one sort relates to words as they stand
singly, and the other as they are connected together. A _single_ word (I
speak of those which are _proper_, and in common use) is then said to be
well chosen, when it founds agreeably, and is the best which could have
been taken to express our meaning. Among borrowed and _translatitious_
[Footnote: Words which are transferred from their primitive meaning to a
metaphorical one.] words, (or those which are not used in their proper
sense) we may reckon the metaphor, the metonymy, and the rest of the
tropes; as also compounded and new-made words, and such as are obsolete
and out of date; but obsolete words should rather be considered as proper
ones, with this only difference, that we seldom make use of them. As to
words in connection, these also may be considered as ornamental, when they
have a certain gracefulness which would be destroyed by changing their
order, though the meaning would still remain the same. For as to the
ornaments of sentiment, which lose nothing of their beauty, by varying the
position of the words,--these, indeed, are very numerous, though only a
few 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 new
words; easy and modest in his metaphors; and very cautious in the use of
words which are antiquated;--and as to the other ornaments of language and
sentiment, here also he will be equally plain and reserved. But in the use
of metaphors, he will, perhaps, take greater liberties; because these are
frequently introduced in conversation, not only by Gentlemen, but even by
rustics, and peasants: for we often hear them say that the vine _shoots
out_ it's buds, that the fields are _thirsty_, the corn _lively_, and the
grain _rich_ and flourishing. Such expressions, indeed, are rather bold:
but the resemblance between the metaphor and the object is either
remarkably obvious; or else, when the latter has no proper name to express
it, the metaphor is so far from appearing to be laboured, that we seem to
use it merely to explain our meaning. This, therefore, is an ornament in
which our artless Orator may indulge himself more freely; but not so
openly as in the more diffusive and lofty species of Eloquence. For that
_indecorum_, which is best understood by comparing it with its opposite
quality, will even here be viable when a metaphor is too conspicuous;--or
when this simple and dispassionate sort of language is interrupted by a
bold ornament, which would have been proper enough in a different kind of
Elocution.

As to that sort of ornament which regards the position of words, and
embellishes it with those studied graces, which are considered by the
Greeks as so many _attitudes_ of language, and are therefore called
_figures_, (a name which is likewise extended to the flowers of
sentiment;)--the Orator before us, who may justly be regarded as an
_Attic_ Speaker, provided the title is not confined to him, will make use
even of _this_, though with great caution and moderation. He will conduct
himself as if he was setting out an entertainment, and while he carefully
avoids a splendid magnificence, he will not only be plain and frugal, but
neat and elegant, and make his choice accordingly. For there is a kind of
genteel parsimony, by which his character is distinguished from that of
others. He will, therefore, avoid the more conspicuous ornaments above-
mentioned, such as the contracting word to word,--the concluding the
several members of a sentence with the same cadence, or confining them to
the same measure,--and all the studied prettiness which are formed by the
change of a letter, or an artful play of found;--that, if possible, there
may not be the slightest appearance, or even suspicion, of a design to
please. As to those repetitions which require an earnest and forcible
exertion of the voice, these also would be equally out of character in
this lower species of Eloquence; but he may use the other ornaments of
Elocution at his pleasure, provided he checks and interrupts the flow of
his language, and softens it off by using familiar expressions, and such
metaphors as are plain and obvious. Nay, even as to the figures of
sentiment, he may sometimes indulge himself in those which are not
remarkably bold and striking. Thus, for instance, we must not allow him to
introduce the Republic as speaking, nor to fetch up the dead from their
graves, nor to crowd a multitude of ideas into the same period. These
efforts demand a firmer constitution, and should be neither required nor
expected from the simple Orator before us; for as in his voice, so
likewise in his language, he should be ever easy and composed. But there
are many of the nobler ornaments which may be admitted even here, though
always in a plainer and more artless habit than in any other species of
Eloquence; for such is the character we have assigned him. His gesture
also will be neither pompous, nor theatrical, but consist in a moderate
and easy sway of the body, and derive much of it's efficacy from the
countenance,--not a stiff and affected countenance, but such a one as
handsomely corresponds with his sentiments.

This kind of Oratory will likewise be frequently enlivened by those turns
of wit and pleasantry, which in Speaking have a much greater effect than
is imagined. There are two sorts of them; the one consisting in smart
sayings and quick repartees, and the other in what is called _humour_. Our
Orator will make use of both;--of the latter in his narratives, to make
them lively and entertaining;--and of the other, either in giving or
retorting a stroke of ridicule, of which there are several kinds; but at
present 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_ are
not to be employed too often, lest we sink into scurrility;--nor in loose
and indecent language, lest we degenerate into wantonness and buffoonery;
--nor with the least degree of petulance and abuse, lest we appear
audacious and ill-bred;--nor levelled against the unfortunate, lest we
incur the censure of inhumanity;--nor against atrocious crimes, lest we
raise a laugh where we ought to excite abhorrence;--nor, in the last
place, should they be used unseasonably, or when the characters either of
the Speaker, or the Hearer, and the circumstances of time and place forbid
it;--otherwise we should grossly fail in that decorum of which we have
already said so much. We should likewise avoid all affected witticisms,
which appear not to be thrown out occasionally, but to be dragged from the
closet; for such are generally cold and insipid. It is also improper to
jest upon our friends, or upon persons of quality, or to give any strokes
of wit which may appear ill-natured, or malicious. We should aim only at
our enemies; and even at these, not upon every occasion, or without any
distinction of character, or with the same invariable turn of ridicule.
Under these restrictions our artless Orator will play off his wit and
humour, as I have never seen it done by any of the modern pretenders to
Atticism, though they cannot deny that this is entirely in the Attic
taste.

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

But there is a second character, which is more diffusive, and somewhat
stronger than the simple and artless, one we have been describing,--though
considerably inferior to that copious and all-commanding Eloquence we
shall notice in the sequel. In this, though there is but a moderate
exertion of the nerves and sinews of Oratory, there is abundance of melody
and sweetness. It is much fuller and richer than the close and accurate
style 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 of
the Greeks have pursued it with success: but, in my opinion, they must all
yield the palm to _Demetrius Phalereus_, whose Eloquence is ever mild and
placid, and bespangled with a most elegant variety of metaphors and other
tropes, like so many _stars_. By _metaphors_, as I have frequently
observed, I mean expressions which, either for the sake of ornament, or
through 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, in
which the proper name of a thing is supplied by another, which conveys the
same meaning, but is borrowed from its adjuncts or effects: for, though,
in this case, there is a kind of metaphor, (because the word is shifted
from its primary object) yet the remove is performed by _Ennius_ in a
different manner, when he says metaphorically,--"_You bereave the citadel
and the city of their offspring_,"--from what it would have been, if he
had put the citadel alone for the whole state: and thus again, when he
tells us that,--"_rugged Africa was shaken by a dreadful tumult_,"--he
puts Africa for the inhabitants. The Rhetoricians call this an
_Hypallage_, because one word is substituted for another: but the
Grammarians call it a _Metonymy_, because the words are shifted and
interchanged. Aristotle, however, subjoins it to the metaphor, as he
likewise does the _Abuse_ or _Catachresis_; by which, for instance, we say
a _narrow, contracted soul_, instead of a _mean_ one, and thus steal an
expression which has a kindred meaning with the proper one, either for the
sake of ornament or decency. When several metaphors are connected together
in a regular chain, the form of speaking is varied. The Greeks call this
an _Allegory_, which indeed is proper enough if we only attend to the
etymology; 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 of
metaphors. These, however, are frequently used by _Phalereus_, and have a
soft and pleasing effect: but though he abounds in the metaphor, he also
makes use of the other tropes with as much freedom as any writer whatever.

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

The _third character_ is the extensive,--the copious,--the nervous,--the
majestic Orator, who possesses the powers of Elocution in their full
extent. _This_ is the man whose enchanting and diffusive language is so
much admired by listening nations, that they have tamely suffered
Eloquence to rule the world;--but an Eloquence whose course is rapid and
sonorous!--an Eloquence which every one gazes at, and admires, and
despairs to equal! This is the Eloquence that bends and sways the
passions!--_this_ the Eloquence that alarms or sooths them at her
pleasure! This is the Eloquence that sometimes tears up all before it like
a whirlwind; and, at other times, steals imperceptibly upon the senses,
and probes to the bottom of the heart!--the Eloquence which ingrafts
opinions that are new, and eradicates the old; but yet is widely different
from the two characters of Speaking before-mentioned.

He who exerts himself in the simple and accurate character, and speaks
neatly and smartly without aiming any higher!--_he_, by this alone, if
carried 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 to
tread 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 his
forces to advantage, fears not the perilous and doubtful hazards of a
public 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, his
fall must be inconsiderable. But the Orator, whom we regard as the prince
of his profession,--the nervous,--the fierce,--the flaming Orator, if he
is born for this alone, and only practices and applies himself to this,
without tempering his copiousness with the two inferior characters of
Eloquence, is of all others the most contemptible. For the plain and
simple Orator, as speaking acutely and expertly, has an appearance of
wisdom and good-sense; and the middle kind of Orator is sufficiently
recommended by his sweetness:--but the copious and diffusive Speaker, if
he 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 causes
should be so managed throughout, and others in one or more of their
parts:)--he, moreover, who proceeds to amplify and exaggerate without
preparing the attention of his audience, will appear to rave before men of
understanding, and to vapour like a person intoxicated before the sober
and sedate.

Thus then, my Brutus, we have at last discovered the finished Orator we
are seeking for: but we have caught him in imagination only;--for if I
could have seized him with my hands, not all his Eloquence should persuade
me to release him. We have at length, however, discovered the eloquent
Speaker, whom Antonius never saw.--But who, then, is he?--I will comprize
his character in a few words, and afterwards unfold it more at large.--He,
then, is an Orator indeed! who can speak upon trivial subjects with
simplicity and art, upon weighty ones with energy and pathos, and upon
those 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 now
discoursing not upon what I _have_ seen, but upon what I could _wish_ to
see; and must therefore recur to that primary semblance or ideal form of
Plato which I have mentioned before, and which, though it cannot be seen
with 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 is
mortal and perishing, but after that which confers a right to the title of
_eloquent_; in other words, I am seeking after Eloquence herself, who can
be discerned only by the eye of the mind.

He then is truly an _Orator_, (I again repeat it,) who can speak upon
trivial subjects with simplicity, upon indifferent ones with moderation,
and upon weighty subjects with energy and pathos. [Footnote: Our Author is
now going to indulge himself in the _Egotism_,--a figure, which, upon many
occasions, he uses as freely as any of the figures of Rhetoric. How the
Reader 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 as
great a veneration for his own talents as any man living. His merit,
however, was so uncommon both as a Statesman, a Philosopher, and an
Orator, and he has obliged posterity with so many useful and amazing
productions of genius, that we ought in gratitude to forgive the vanity of
the _man_. Although he has ornamented the socket in which he has _set_ his
character, with an extravagant (and I had almost said ridiculous)
profusion of self-applause, it must be remembered that the diamond it
contains is a gem of inestimable value.] The cause I pleaded for Caecina
related entirely to the bare letter of the Interdict: here, therefore, I
explained what was intricate by a definition,--spoke in praise of the
Civil Law,--and dissolved the ambiguities which embarrassed the meaning of
the Statute.--In recommending the Manilian Law, I was to blazon the
character of _Pompey_, and therefore indulged myself in all that variety
of ornament which is peculiar to the second species of Eloquence. In the
cause of Rabirius, as the honour of the Republic was at stake, I blazed
forth in every species of amplification. But these characters are
sometimes to be intermingled and diversified. Which of them, therefore, is
not to be met with in my seven Invectives against _Verres_? or in the
cause of _Habitus_? or in that of _Cornelius_? or indeed in most of my
Defences? I would have specified the particular examples, did I not
believe them to be sufficiently known; or, at least, very easy to be
discovered by those who will take the trouble to seek for them. For there
is nothing which can recommend an Orator in the different characters of
speaking, but what has been exemplified in my Orations,--if not to
perfection, yet at least it has been attempted, and faintly delineated. I
have not, indeed, the vanity to think I have arrived at the summit; but I
can easily discern what Eloquence ought to be. For I am not to speak of
myself, but to attend to my subject; and so far am I from admiring my own
productions, that, on the contrary, I am so nice and difficult, as not to
be entirely satisfied with Demosthenes himself, who, though he rises with
superior eminence in every species of Eloquence, does not always fill my
ear;--so eager is it, and so insatiable, as to be ever coveting what is
boundless and immense. But as, by the assistance of _Pammenes_, who is
very fond of that Orator, you made yourself thoroughly acquainted with him
when you was at _Athens_, and to this day scarcely ever part with him from
your hands, and yet frequently condescend to peruse what has been written
by _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 the
subject required. But he, beyond dispute, was a consummate Orator; for he
not only succeeded several eminent Speakers, but had many such for his
cotemporaries:--and I also, if I could have reached the perfection I aimed
at, should have made no despicable figure in a city, where (according to
Antonius) 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 Hortensius
would have succeeded any better. For _Cotta_ had no expansion, _Sulpicius_
no temper, and _Hortensius_ too little dignity. But the two former (I mean
Crassus and Antonius) had a capacity which was better adapted to every
species of Oratory. I had, therefore, to address myself to the ears of a
city which had never been filled by that multifarious and extensive
Eloquence we are discoursing of; and I first allured them (let me have
been what you please, or what ever were my talents) to an incredible
desire of hearing the finished Speaker who is the subject of the present
Essay. For with what acclamations did I deliver that passage in my youth
concerning the punishment of parricides [Footnote: Those unnatural and
infamous wretches, among the Romans, were sown into a leathern sack, and
thus thrown into the sea; to intimate that they were unworthy of having
the lead communication with the common elements of water, earth, and
air.], 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, the
sea to floating corpses, and the shore to those who are caft upon it by
the waves! But these wretches, as long as life remains, so live as not to
breathe the air of heaven;--they so perish, that their limbs are not
suffered 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, their
dead, carcases cannot rest upon the surface of the rocks!" All this, as
coming from a youth, was much applauded, not for it's ripeness and
solidity, but for the hopes it gave the Public of my future improvement.
From the same capacity came those riper expressions,--"She was the spouse
of her son-in-law, the step-mother of her own offspring? and the mistress
of her daughter's husband [Footnote: This passage occurs in the peroration
of his Defence of Cluentius]."

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