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 the third thing proposed,--that _numerous_ and
well-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible as
not to feel it, I cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or what
resemblance of a human Being! For my part, my ears are always fond of a
complete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant what
is either defective or redundant. But wherefore do I say _mine_? I have
frequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at a
happy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should be
properly tuned and measured. This, however, is an accomplishment which is
not 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 of
words, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had not
the art of harmonizing and completing their periods. This, say some, is
the very thing we admire. But what if they should take it into their heads
to prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, to
the rich and finished style of the moderns? The former, I suppose, must be
again adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected. But
these pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ of
antiquity. It must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim to
authority 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 much
upbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she was
mistress of:--especially as I judge the latter to be of far greater
consequence than the former. For there is certainly more real merit in a
masterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowed
to excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totally
unacquainted. This species of composition was not known among the Romans
till lately: but the ancients, I believe, would readily have adopted it,
if it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is now
made use of by all Orators of reputation. "But when _number_, or (as the
Greeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicial
and forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound:
for people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to sooth
and captivate their ears, when the Speaker is so over-exact as to attend
to the harmony of his periods." Relying upon the force of this objection,
these pretenders are perpetually grating our ears with their broken and
mutilated sentences; and censure those, without mercy, who have the
presumption to utter an agreeable and a well-turned period. If, indeed, it
was our design to spread a varnish over empty words and trifling
sentiments, the censure would be just: but when the matter is good, and
the words are proper and expressive, what reason can be assigned why we
should prefer a limping and imperfect period to one which terminates and
keeps pace with the sense? For this invidious and persecuted _metre_ aims
at nothing more than to adapt the compass of our words to that of our
thoughts; 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 derive
their merit from the agreeable and measured flow of the language.

This is an art which was in common use among the Greek Orators, about four
hundred years ago, though it has been but lately introduced among the
Romans. Ennius, therefore, when he ridicules the inharmonious numbers of
his 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 of
the numerous and measured style I am speaking of: But many, who are still
absolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridicule
they deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. I must own,
indeed, that I admire the venerable patterns, of which those persons
pretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects I
observe in them: but I can by no means commend the folly of those who copy
nothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the most
distant resemblance in what is truly excellent.

But if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they pay
no deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated for
their learning? I will not mention _Isocrates_, and his two scholars,
_Ephorus_ and _Naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving the
richest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent Orators.
But who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtle
and acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and a
greater strength of understanding, than _Aristotle_? I may add, who made a
warmer opposition to the rising fame of _Isocrates_? And yet _he_, though
he forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. His
hearer _Theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and an
excellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and
_Theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. Who, then, can have
patience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to oppose
themselves to such venerable names as these? The only excuse that can be
made for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and are
therefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we are
speaking of. If this is the case with them (and I cannot think otherwise)
will they reject the evidence of their own sensations? Is there nothing
which their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harsh
and unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothing
redundant? In dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim against
a verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yet
the bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, and
are totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but Nature
herself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determine
the propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute.

Do you desire, then, my Brutus, that we should discuss the subject more
fully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the other
parts of rhetoric? Or shall we content ourselves with the instructions
which _they_ have provided for us? But wherefore do I offer such a
question, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is the
chief object of your request? We shall proceed, therefore, to give an
account of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of
_prosaic numbers_.

The admirers of Isocrates place the first invention of numbers among those
other improvements which do honour to his memory. For observing, say they,
that the Orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while the
Poets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce a
species of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon the
ear, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continued
uniformity of sound. This, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise;
for though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in the
subject 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, was
the original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have a
kind of spontaneous harmony,--such as a regular succession of words with
the same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting opposite
circumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them to
excess. This, however, is one of the three branches of composition above-
mentioned. But each of these authors was prior to _Isocrates_: so that the
preference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not for
the _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turn
of his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are more
composed and sedate. But _Gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, and
indulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess.
He, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he had
first studied in his youth under the same _Gorgias_, who was then in
Thessaly, and in the last decline of life. Nay, as he advanced in years
(for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and gradually
relaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularly
informs us in the treatise which he dedicated to Philip of Macedon, in the
latter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off that
servile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--so
that he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of his
predecessors.

Having thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the first
commencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the natural
source and origin of it. But this lies so open to observation, that I am
astonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, by
mere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, when
they had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to make
it obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chance
alone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species of
ornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would have
taken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. For
the ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has a
natural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordingly
feel 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, and
mutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defrauded
of it's natural due. In others it discovers an immoderate length, and a
tedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgusted
than with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess is
always more offensive than a proportional defect. As versification,
therefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of the
ear, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so in
prose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidance
of nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our language
should be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits.

So much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. We must next
proceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the nature
of it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceeds
the limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in a
professed and accurate system of the art. For we might here inquire what
is meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence it
arises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of any
variety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when and
where it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear.
But as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods of
disquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other more
concise, and, I might also add, more easy and comprehensible. In the
former, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any such
thing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because no
fixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long have
been for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend for
it's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it. Granting,
however, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired of
what kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of the
poets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which of
them may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, and
some 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 are
equally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive,
and the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether the
different species of Oratory should be accommodated with their different
numbers. If the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we must
next enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differently
applied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they are
not to be used so openly in prose as in verse. It might likewise be a
matter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by the
use of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture of
our words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression;
--and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiar
province, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, composition
the _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of our
language,--and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of all
the rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to those
figurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the Greeks, as I
have before observed, are called ([Greek: _schaemaia_],) _attitudes_ or
_figures_. But to me there appears to be a real distinction between what
is agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of
_expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closely
connected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerous
without any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently different
from 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 to
reject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. Even poetic
metre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere natural
taste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved and
methodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention to
nature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensations
gave 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, and
that 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 several
specimens of this nature in our own poets [Footnote: It must here be
remarked, that the Romans had no lyric poet before _Horace_, who did not
flourish till after the times of _Cicero_.]; such as the following line in
the tragedy of _Thyestes_,

"_Quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tarda senectute_;

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

which, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken for
prose. But the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblance
to the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you can
scarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it is
evident 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 and
polish them. But as in other cases, what was invented to serve our
necessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so,
in the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted to
express our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the invention
of _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. Accordingly
_Herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea of
prosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random,
and by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (I mean
those of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though they
have left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management of
our style. For what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, for
that reason, always first discovered. Metaphors, therefore, and new-made
and compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowed
from custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from our
domestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with common
language; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till every
other improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the last
touches to the style of Eloquence.

As it may be remarked that one sort of language is interrupted by frequent
breaks and intermissions, while another is flowing and diffusive; it is
evident that the difference cannot result from the natural sounds of
different letters, but from the various combinations of long and short
syllables, with which our language, being differently blended and
intermingled, will be either dull and motionless, or lively and fluent; so
that every circumstance of this nature must be regulated by _number_. For
by the assistance of _numbers_, the _period_, which I have so often
mentioned before, pursues it's course with greater strength and freedom
till it comes to a natural pause. It is therefore plain that the style of
an Orator should be measured and harmonized by _numbers_, though entirely
free from verse; but whether these numbers should be the same as those of
the 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 the
utmost precision; for every number may be comprized in the three following
varieties:--_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 the
former 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 is
the long syllable, is equal to two-thirds of the other. These are feet
which are unavoidably incident to language; and a proper arrangement of
them will produce a _numerous_ style.

But it will here be enquired, What numbers should have the preference? To
which I answer, They must all occur promiscuously; as is evident from our
sometimes speaking verse without knowing it, which in prose is reckoned a
capital fault; but in the hurry of discourse we cannot always watch and
criticise ourselves. As to _senarian_ and _hipponactic_ [Footnote: Verses
chiefly composed of iambics] verses, it is scarcely possible to avoid
them; for a considerable part, even of our common language, is composed of
_iambics_. To these, however, the hearer is easily reconciled; because
custom has made them familiar to his ear. But through inattention we are
often betrayed into verses which are not so familiar;--a fault which may
easily be avoided by a course of habitual circumspection. _Hieronymus_, an
eminent Peripatetic, has collected out of the numerous writings of
Isocrates about thirty verses, most of them senarian, and some of them
anapest, which in prose have a more disagreeable effect than any others.
But he quotes them with a malicious partiality: for he cuts off the first
syllable of the first word in a sentence, and annexes to the last word the
first syllable of the following sentence; and thus he forms what is called
an _Aristophanean_ anapest, which it is neither possible nor necessary to
avoid entirely. But, this redoubtable critic, as I discovered upon a
closer inspection, has himself been betrayed into a senarian or iambic
verse 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 of
a Poet. The next thing to be considered is, what are the numbers which are
most suitable to his character, and, for that reason, should occur more
frequently 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 account
of it's resemblance to conversation; and because the dactyl, which is the
favourite number of hexameters, is more adapted to a pompous style.
_Ephorus_, on the other hand, declares for the paeon and the dactyl; and
rejects the spondee and the trochee (long short). For as the paeon
has three short syllables, and the dactyl two, he thinks their shortness
and celerity give a brisk and lively flow to our language; and that a
different effect would be produced by the trochee and the spondee, the one
consisting of short syllables, and the other of long ones;--so that by
using the former, the current of our words would become too rapid, and too
heavy by employing the latter, losing, in either case, that easy
moderation which best satisfies the ear. But both parties seem to be
equally mistaken: for those who exclude the paeon, are not aware that they
reject the sweetest and fullest number we have. Aristotle was far from
thinking as they do: he was of opinion that heroic numbers are too
sonorous for prose; and that, on the other hand, the iambic has too much
the resemblance of vulgar talk:--and, accordingly, he recommends the style
which is neither too low and common, nor too lofty and extravagant, but
retains such a just proportion of dignity, as to win the attention, and
excite the admiration of the hearer. He, therefore, calls the _trochee_
(which has precisely the same quantity as the _choree_) _the rhetorical
jigg_ [Footnote: _Cordacem appellat_. The _cordax_ was a lascivious dance
very full of agitation.]; because the shortness and rapidity of it's
syllables are incompatible with the majesty of Eloquence. For this reason
he recommends the _paeon_, and says that every person makes use of it,
even without being sensible when he does so. He likewise observes that it
is a proper medium between the different feet above-mentioned:--the
proportion between the long and short syllables, in every foot, being
either sesquiplicate, duple, or equal.

The authors, therefore, whom I mentioned before attended merely to the
easy flow of our language, without any regard to it's dignity. For the
iambic and the dactyl are chiefly used in poetry; so that to avoid
versifying in prose, we must shun, as much as possible, a continued
repetition of either; because the language of prose is of a different
cast, and absolutely incompatible with verse. As the paeon, therefore, is
of all other feet the most improper for poetry, it may, for that reason be
more readily admitted into prose. But as to _Ephorus_, he did not reflect
that even the _spondee_, which he rejects, is equal in time to his
favourite dactyl; because he supposed that feet were to be measured not by
the quantity, but the number of their syllables;--a mistake of which he is
equally guilty when he excludes the _trochee_, which, in time and
quantity, is precisely equal to the iambic; though it is undoubtedly
faulty at the end of a period, which always terminates more agreeably in a
long 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 be
intermingled and diversified with all the varieties of number; for should
we confine ourselves to any particular feet, it would be impossible to
escape the censure of the hearer; because our style should neither be so
exactly measured as that of the poets, nor entirely destitute of number,
like that of the common people. The former, as being too regular and
uniform, betrays an appearance of art; and the other, which is as much too
loose and undetermined, has the air of ordinary talk; so that we receive
no pleasure from the one, and are absolutely disgusted with the other. Our
style, therefore, as I have just observed, should be so blended and
diversified with different numbers, as to be neither too vague and
unrestrained, nor too openly numerous, but abound most in the paeon (so
much recommended by the excellent author above-mentioned) though still in
conjunction with many other feet which he entirely omits.

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