10. The question of the “kind of style” to be
adopted remains to be discussed. This was described
in my original division
1 of my subject as forming its
third portion: for I promised that I would speak of
the art, the artist and the work. But since oratory
is the work both of rhetoric and of the orator, and
since it has many forms, as I shall show, the art and
the artist are involved in the consideration of all
these forms. But they differ greatly from one
another, and not merely in
species, as statue differs
from statue, picture from picture and speech from
speech, but in
genus as well, as, for example,
Etruscan statues differ from Greek and Asiatic
orators from Attic.
[
2]
But these different kinds of
work, of which I speak, are not merely the product
of different authors, but have each their own following of admirers, with the result that the perfect
orator has not yet been found, a statement which
perhaps may be extended to all arts, not merely
because some qualities are more evident in some
artists than in others, but because one single form
[p. 451]
will not satisfy all critics, a fact which is due in
part to conditions of time or place, in part to the
taste and ideals of individuals.
[
3]
The first great painters, whose works deserve
inspection for something more than their mere
antiquity, are said to have been Polygnotus and
Aglaopllon,
2 whose simple colouring has still such
enthusiastic admirers that they prefer these almost
primitive works, which may be regarded as the first
foundations of the art that was to be, over the works
of the greatest of their successors, their motive
being, in my opinion, an ostentatious desire to seem
persons of superior taste.
[
4]
Later Zeuxis and Parrhasius contributed much to the progress of painting.
These artists were separated by no great distance of
time, since both flourished about the period of the
Peloponnesian war: for example, Xenophon
3 has
preserved a conversation between Socrates and
Parrhasius. The first-mentioned seems to have
discovered the method of representing light and
shade, while the latter is said to have devoted
special attention to the treatment of line.
[
5]
For
Zeuxis emphasised the limbs of the human body,
4
thinking thereby to add dignity and grandeur to
his style: it is generally supposed that in this he
followed the example of Homer, who likes to
represent even his female characters as being of
heroic mould. Parrhasius, on the other hand, was
so fine a draughtsman that he has been styled the
law-giver of his art, on the ground that all other
artists take his representations of gods and heroes as
models, as though no other course were possible.
[
6]
It was, however, from about the period of the reign
of Philip down to that of the successors of Alexander
[p. 453]
that painting flourished more especially, although
the different artists are distinguished for different
excellences. Protogenes, for example, was renowned
for accuracy, Pamphilus and Melanthius for soundness of taste, Antiphilus for facility, Theon of Samos
for his depiction of imaginary scenes, known as
φαντασίαι, and Apelles for genius and grace, in the
latter of which qualities he took especial pride.
Euphranor, on the other hand, was admired on the
ground that, while he ranked with the most eminent
masters of other arts, he at the same time achieved
marvellous skill in the arts of sculpture and painting.
[
7]
The same differences exist between sculptors. The
art of Callon and Hegesias
5 is somewhat rude and
recalls the Etruscans, but the work of Calamis has
already begun to be less stiff, while Myron's statues
show a greater softness of form than had been
achieved by the artists just mentioned. Polyclitus
surpassed all others for care and grace, but although
the majority of critics account him as the greatest
of sculptors, to avoid making him faultless they
express the opinion that his work is lacking in
grandeur.
[
8]
For while he gave the human form an
ideal grace, he is thought to have been less successful in representing the dignity of the gods. he is
further alleged to have shrunk from representing
persons of maturer years, and to have ventured on
nothing more difficult than a smooth and beardless
face. But the qualities lacking in Polyclitus are
allowed to have been possessed by Phidias and
Alcamenes.
[
9]
On the other hand, Phidias is regarded
as more gifted in his representation of gods than of
men, and indeed for chryselephantine statues he is
without a peer, as he would in truth be, even if he
[p. 455]
had produced nothing in this material beyond his
Minerva at Athens and his Jupiter at Olympia in
Elis, whose beauty is such that it is said to have
added something even to the awe with which the
god was already regarded: so perfectly did the
majesty of the work give the impression of godhead.
Lysippus and Praxiteles are asserted to be supreme
as regards faithfulness to nature. For Demetrius is
blamed for carrying realism too far, and is less
concerned about the beauty than the truth of his
work.
[
10]
Now, if we turn our attention to the various styles
of oratory, we shall find almost as great variety of
talents as there are of personal appearance. There
were certain kinds of oratory which, owing to the
circumstances of the age, suffered from lack of polish,
although in other respects they displayed remarkable
genius. In this class we may place orators such as
Laelius, Africanus, Cato, and even the Gracchi,
whom we may call the “Polygnoti” and “Callones”
of oratory.
[
11]
Among orators of the intermediate
type we may rank Lucius Crassus and Quintus
Hortensius. Then let us turn to a vast harvest of
orators who flourished much about the same period.
It is here that we find the vigour of Caesar, the
natural talent of Caelius, the subtlety of Calidius,
the accuracy of Pollio, the dignity of Messala, the
austerity of Calvus, the gravity of Brutus, the acumen
of Sulpicius and the bitterness of Cassius, while
among those whom we have seen ourselves we
admire the fluency of Seneca, the strength of Africanus, the mellowness of Afer, the charm of Crispus,
the sonority of Trachalus and the elegance of Secundus.
[
12]
But in Cicero we have one who is not,
[p. 457]
like Euphranor, merely distinguished in a number
of different forms of art, but is supreme in all the
different qualities which are praised in each individual
orator.
6 And yet even his own contemporaries
ventured to attack him on the ground that he was
bombastic, Asiatic, redundant, given to excessive
repetition, liable at times to be pointless in his
witticisms, sensuous, extravagant and (an outrageous
accusation!) almost effeminate in his rhythm.
[
13]
And
later, after he had fallen a victim to the proscription of the second triumvirate, those who hated
and envied him and regarded him as their rival, nay,
even those who had flattered him in the days of his
power, attacked him now that he could no longer
reply. But that very man, who is now regarded
by some as being too jejune and dry, was attacked
by his personal enemies on no other ground than
that his style was too florid and his talents too little
under control. Both charges are false, but there is
more colour for the he in the latter case than in
the former.
[
14]
Those, however, who criticised him
most severely were the speakers who desired to be
regarded as the imitators of Attic oratory. This
coterie, regarding themselves as the sole initiates in
the mysteries of their art, assailed him as an alien,
indifferent to their superstitions and refusing to be
bound by their laws. Their descendants are among
us to-day, a withered, sapless and anemic band.
[
15]
For it is they that flaunt their weakness under the
name of health, in defiance of the actual truth, and
because they cannot endure the dazzling rays of the
sun of eloquence, hide themselves beneath the
shadow of a mighty name.
7 However, as Cicero himself answered them at length and in a number of
[p. 459]
passages, it will be safer for me to be brief in my
treatment of this topic.
[
16]
The distinction between the Attic and the Asiatic
schools takes us back to antiquity. The former were
regarded as concise and healthy, the latter as empty
and inflated: the former were remarkable for the
absence of all superfluity, while the latter were
deficient alike in taste and restraint. The reason
for this division, according to some authorities,
among them Santra, is to be found in the fact that,
as Greek gradually extended its range into the
neighbouring cities of Asia, there arose a class of
men who desired to distinguish themselves as orators
before they had acquired sufficient command of the
language, and who consequently began to express
by periphrases what could have been expressed
directly, until finally this practice became an ingrained habit.
[
17]
My own view, however, is that the
difference between the two styles is attributable to
the character both of the orators and the audiences
whom they addressed: the Athenians, with their
polish and refinement, refused to tolerate emptiness
and redundance, while the Asiatics, being naturally
given to bombast and ostentation, were puffed up
with a passion for a more vainglorious style of
eloquence.
[
18]
At a later period, the critics, to whom
we owe this classification, added a third style, the
Rhodian, which they asserted to he midway between
the two and to be a blend of both, since the orators
of this school are neither so concise as the Attic nor
redundant like the Asiatic school, but appear to
derive their style in part from their national characteristics, in part from those of their founder.
[
19]
For
it was Aeschines who introduced the culture of
[p. 461]
Athens at Rhodes, which he had chosen as his place
of exile: and just as certain plants degenerate as a
result of change of soil and climate, so the fine Attic
flavour was marred by the admixture of foreign
ingredients. Consequently certain of the orators of
this school are regarded as somewhat slow and
lacking in energy, though not devoid of a certain
weight, and as resembling placid pools rather than
the limpid springs of Athens or the turbid torrents
of Asia.
[
20]
No one therefore should have any hesitation in
pronouncing Attic oratory to be by far the best. But
although all Attic writers have something in comion, namely a keen and exact judgement, their
talents manitest themselves in a number of different
forms.
[
21]
Consequently I regard those critics as committing a serious error who regard only those
authors as Attic who, while they are simple, lucid
and expressive, are none the less content with a
certain frugality of eloquence, and keep their hands
modestly within the folds of their cloaks. For what
author is there who answers to this conception? I
am prepared to grant that there is Lysias, since he
is the favourite model of the admirers of this school,
and such an admission will save us from being
referred to Coccus
8 and Andocides.
[
22]
But I should like
to ask whether Isocrates spoke in the Attic style.
For there is no author less like Lysias. They will
answer in the negative. And yet it is to the school
of Isocrates that we owe the greatest orators. Let
us look for something closer. Is Hyperides
Attic? Yes, they reply, but of an over-sensuous
character. I pass by a number of orators, such as
Lyucrgus and Aristogeiton and their predecessors
[p. 463]
Isaeus and Antiphon; for though they have a certain
generic resemblance, they may be said to differ in
species.
[
23]
But what of Aesehines, whom I mentioned
just now? Is not his style ampler and holder and
more lofty than theirs? And what of Demosthenes
himself? Did not he surpass all those simple and
circumspect orators in force, loftiness, energy, polish
and rhythm? Does he not rise to great heights in
his
commonplaces Does he not rejoice in the employment of figures? Does he not make brilliant use of
metaphor? Does he not lend a voice, a fictitious
utterance to speechless things?
[
24]
Does not his famous
oath by the warriors who fell fighting for their country
at Salamis and Marathon show that Plato was his
master? And shall we call Plato an Asiatic, Plato
who as a rule deserves comparison with poets instinct
with the divine fire of inspiration? What of Pericles?
Can we believe that his style was like the slender
stream of Lysias' eloquence, when the comedians,
even while they revile him, compare his oratory to
the bolts and thunder of the skies?
[
25]
What is the
reason, then, why these critics regard that style
which flows in a slender trickle and babbles among
the pebbles as having the true Attic flavour and
the true scent of Attic thyme? I really think that,
if they were to discover a soil of exceptional richness
and a crop of unusual abundance within the boundaries
of Attica, they would deny it to be Attic, on the
ground that it has produced more seed than it
received: for you will remember the mocking comments passed by Menander
9 on the exact fidelity
with which the soil of Attica repays its deposits.
[
26]
Well, then, if any man should, in addition to the
actual virtues which the great orator Demosthenes
[p. 465]
possessed, show himself to be the possessor of others,
that either owing to his own temperament or the
laws of Athens
10 Demosthenes is thought to have
lacked, and should reveal in himself the power of
strongly stirring the emotions, shall I hear one of
these critics protesting that Demosthenes never did
this? And if he produces something rhythmically
superior (an impossible feat, perhaps, but let us
assume it to be so), are we to be told that it is not
Attic? These critics would show finer feeling and
better judgement, if they took the view that Attic
eloquence meant perfect eloquence.
[
27]
Still I should find this attitude less intolerable if
it were only the Greeks that insisted on it. For Latin
eloquence, although in my opinion it closely resembles
the Greek as far as invention, arrangement, judgement and the like are concerned, and may indeed be
regarded as its disciple, cannot aspire to imitate it
in point of elocution. For, in the first place, it is
harsher in sound, since our alphabet does not contain
the most euphonious of the Greek letters, one a
vowel and the other a consonant,
11 than which there
are none that fall more sweetly on the ear, and
which we are forced to borrow whenever we use
Greek words.
[
28]
The result of such borrowing is, for
some reason or other, the immediate accession to
our language of a certain liveliness and charm.
Take, for example, words such as
sephyri and
zophori:12
if they were spelt according to the Latin alphabet,
they would produce a heavy and barbarous sound.
For we replace these letters by others of a harsh
and unpleasant character,
13 from which Greece is
happily immune.
[
29]
For the sixth letter in our alphabet
is represented by a sound which can scarcely be
[p. 467]
called human or even articulate, being produced by
forcing the air through the interstices of the teeth.
Such a sound, even when followed by a vowel, is
harsh enough and, as often as it clashes (
frangit)
with a consonant,
14 as it does in this very word
frangit, becomes harsher still. Then there is the
Aeolic digamma whose sound occurs in words such
as our
servus and
cervus; for even though we have
rejected the actual form of the letter, we cannot
get rid of that which it represents.
15
[
30]
Similarly the
letter Q, which is superfluous and useless save for
the purpose of attaching to itself the vowels by
which it is followed, results in the formation of
harsh syllables, as, for example, when we write
equos
and
aequum, more especially since these two vowels
together produce a sound for which Greek has no
equivalent and which cannot therefore be expressed
in Greek letters.
16
[
31]
Again, we have a number of
words which end with M, a letter which suggests
the mooing of a cow, and is never the final letter
in any Greek word: for in its place they use the
letters
nu, the sound of which is naturally pleasant
and produces a ringing tone when it occurs at the
end of' a word, whereas in Latin this termination is
scarcely ever found.
[
32]
Again, we have syllables which
produce such a harsh effect by ending in B and
D, that
many, not, it is true, of our most ancient
writers, but still writers of considerable antiquity,
have attempted to mitigate the harshness not merely
by saying
aversa for
abversa, but by adding an S
to the preposition
ab, although S is an ugly letter
[
33]
in itself Our accents also are less agreeable than
those of the Greeks. This is due to a certain rigidity
and monotony of pronunciation, since the final
[p. 469]
syllable is never marked by the rise of the acute
accent nor by the rise and fill of the circumflex, but
one or even two grave accents
17 are regularly to be
found at the end. Consequently the Greek language
is so much more agreeable in sound than the Latin,
that our poets, whenever they wish their verse to
be especially harmonious, adorn it with Greek words.
[
34]
A still stronger indication of the inferiority of Latin
is to be found in the fact that there are many things
which have no Latin names, so that it is necessary
to express them by metaphor or periphrasis, while
even in the case of things which have names, the
extreme poverty of the language leads us to resort
to the same practice.
18 On the other hand, the
Greeks have not merely abundance of words, but
they have also a number of different dialects.
[
35]
Consequently he who demands from Latin the
grace of Attic Greek, must first provide a like
charm of tone and equal richness of vocabulary. If
this advantage is denied us, we must adapt our
thoughts to suit the words we have and, where our
matter is unusually slight and delicate, must avoid
expressing it in words which are, I will not say too
gross, but at any rate too strong for it, for fear that
the combination should result in the destruction
both of delicacy and force.
[
36]
For the less help we
get from the language, the more must we rely on
inventiveness of thought to bring us through the
conflict. We must discover sentiments full of loftiness and variety, must stir all the emotions and
illumine our style by brilliance of metaphor. Since
we cannot be so delicate, let us be stronger. If
they beat us for subtlety, let us prevail by weight,
and if they have greater precision, let us outdo
[p. 471]
them in fullness of expression.
[
37]
Even the lesser
orators of Greece have their own havens where they
may ride in safety,
19 while we as a rule carry more
sail. Let stronger gales fill our canvas, and yet let
us not always keep the high seas; for at times we
must cling to shore. The Greeks can easily traverse
any shallows; I must find a deeper, though not
much deeper, channel, that my bark may not run
aground.
[
38]
For even though the Greeks surpass us
where circumstances call for delicacy and restraint,
though we acknowledge their superiority in this
respect alone, and therefore do not claim to rival
them in comedy, that is no justification for our
abandonment of this department of oratory, but
rather a reason why we should handle it as best we
can. Now we can at any rate resemble the Greeks
in the method and judgement with which we treat
our matter, although that grace of language, which
our words cannot provide, must be secured by the
admixture of foreign condiments.
[
39]
For example, is
not Cicero shrewd, simple and not unduly exalted
in tone, when he deals with private eases? Is not
Calidius also distinguished for the same virtue?
Were not Scipio, Laelius and Cato the Attic orators
of Rome? Surely we ought to be satisfied with
them, since nothing can be better.
[
40]
There are still some critics who deny that any
form of eloquence is purely natural, except that
which closely resembles the ordinary speech of everyday life, which we use to our friends, our wives, our
children and our slaves, a language, that is to say,
which contents itself with expressing the purpose
of the mind without seeking to discover anything
in the way of elaborate and far-fetched phraseology.
[p. 473]
And they hold that whatever is added to this
simplicity lays the speaker open to the charge of
affectation and pretentious ostentation of speech,
void of all sincerity and elaborated merely for the
sake of the words, although the sole duty assigned
to words by nature is to be the servants of thought.
[
41]
Such language may be compared to the bodies of
athletes, which although they develop their strength
by exercise and diet, are of unnatural growth and
abnormal in appearance. For what, say these critics,
is the good of expressing a thing by periphrasis or
metaphor (that is, either by a number of words or
by words which have no connexion with the thing),
when everything has been allotted a name of its
own?
[
42]
Finally, they urge that all the earliest orators
spoke according to the dictates of nature, but that
subsequently there arose a class of speakers resembling poets rather than orators, who regarded
false and artificial methods of expression as positive
merits; they were, it is true, more sparing than
the poets in their use of such expressions, but none
the less worked on similar lines. There is some
truth in this contention, and we should therefore
be careful not to depart from the more exact usage
of ordinary speech to the extent that is done by
certain orators.
[
43]
On the other hand, that is no
reason for thus calumniating the man who, as I said
in dealing with the subject of artistic structure,
20
succeeds in improving upon the bare necessaries of
style. For the common language of every day seems
to me to be of a different character from the style
of an eloquent speaker. If all that was required of
the latter was merely to indicate the facts, he might
rest content with literalness of language, without
[p. 475]
further elaboration. But since it is his duty to
delight and move his audience and to play upon
the various feelings, it becomes necessary for him
to employ those additional aids which are granted
to us by that same nature which gave us speech.
[
44]
It is, in fact, as natural to do this as to harden the
muscles, increase our strength and improve our complexion by means of exercise. It is for this reason
that among all nations one man is regarded as more
eloquent and more attractive in his style than
another (since if this were not the case, all speakers
would be equal); but the same men speak differently on different subjects and observe distinctions
of character. Consequently the more effective a
man's speaking, the more in accordance with the
nature of eloquence will it be.
[
45]
I have, therefore, no strong objection even to the
views expressed by those who think that some concession should be made to the circumstances under which
we speak and to the ears of the audience which
require something more polished and emotional than
ordinary speech. For this reason I consider that it
would be absurd to restrict an orator to the style of
the predecessors of Cato and the Gracchi, or even
of those orators themselves. And I note that it was
the practice of Cicero, while devoting himself in the
main to the interests of his case, to take into account
the delectation of his audience as well, since, as he
pointed out, his own interests were concerned as
well as those of his client, although of course the
latter were of paramount importance. For his very
charm was a valuable asset.
[
46]
I do not know what
can be added by way of improvement to the charms
of his style, except perhaps the introduction of
[p. 477]
something more in the way of brilliant reflexions to
suit the taste of our own times. For this can be done
without injury to the treatment of our case or inpairing the authority of our language, provided that
such embellishments are not too frequent or continuous, and do not mutually destroy the effects
which they were designed to produce.
[
47]
I am ready
to go so far along the path of concession, but let no
man press me further. I concur in the fashion of
the day to the extent of agreeing that the toga
should not be long in the nap, but not to the extent
of insisting that it should be of silk: I agree that
the hair should be cut, but not that it should be
dressed in tiers and ringlets, since we must always
remember that ornaments, unless they be judged
from the standpoint of the fop and the debauchee,
are always effective in proportion to their seemliness.
[
48]
But with regard to those passages to which we give
the name of
reflexions,21 a form of ornament which
was not employed by the ancients and, above all,
not by the Greeks, although I do find it in Cicero,
who can deny their usefulness, provided they are
relevant to the case, are not too diffuse and contribute to our success? For they strike the mind
and often produce a decisive effect by one single
blow, while their very brevity makes them cling to
the memory, and the pleasure which they produce
has the force of persuasion.
[
49]
There are, however, some who, while allowing
the actual delivery of such specially brilliant forms
of ornament, think that they should be excluded
from the written speech. Consequently I must not
dismiss even this topic without a word of discussion. For a number of learned authorities
[p. 479]
have held that the written and the spoken speech
stand on different footings, and that consequently
some of the most eloquent of speakers have left
nothing for posterity to read in durable literary form,
as, for example, is the case with Pericles and Decades
Again, they urge that there have been authors, like
Isocrates, who, while admirable writers, were not
well-fitted for actual speaking;
[
50]
and, further, that
actual pleading is characterised by a greater energy
and by the employment, almost verging on license,
of every artifice designed to please, since the minds
of an uneducated audience require to be moved and
led. On the other hand, the written speech with
is published as a model of style must be polished
and filed and brought into conformity with the
accepted rules and standards of artistic construction,
since it will come into the hands of learned men
and its art will be judged by artists.
[
51]
These subtle
teachers (for such they have persuaded themselves
and others that they are) have laid it down that
the
παράδειγμα22 is best suited for actual speech and
the
ἐνθύμημα23 for writing. My own view is that
there is absolutely no difference between writing
well and speaking well, and that a written speech
is merely a record of one that has actually been
delivered. Consequently it must in my opinion
possess every kind of merit, and note that I say
merit, not fault. For I know that faults do sometimes meet with the approval of the uneducated.
[
52]
What, then, will be the difference between what is
written and what is spoken? If I were given a jury
of wise men, I should cut down a large number of
passages from the speeches not only of Cicero, but
even of Demosthenes, who is much more concise.
[p. 481]
For with such a jury there would be no need to
appeal to the emotions nor to charm and soothe the
ears, since according to Aristotle
24 even exordia are
superfluous, if addressed to such persons, as they
will have no influence upon judges who are truly
wise: it will be sufficient to state the facts with
precision and significance and to marshal our array
of proofs.
[
53]
Since, however, our judges are the
people, or drawn from the people, and since those
who are appointed to give sentence are frequently
ill-educated and sometimes mere rustics, it becomes
necessary to employ every method that we think
likely to assist our case, and these artifices must
not merely be produced in speech, but exhibited in
the written version as well, at least if in writing it
our design is to show how it should be spoken.
[
54]
If
Demosthenes or Cicero had spoken the words as
they wrote them, would either have spoken ill
And is our acquaintance with either of those two
great orators based on anything save their writings?
Did they speak better, then, or worse than they
wrote? If they spoke worse, all that can be said
is that they should have spoken as they wrote,
while, if they spoke better, they should have
written as they spoke.
[
55]
Well, you ask, is an orator
then always to speak as he writes? If possible,
always. If, however, the time allowed by the
judge is too short for this to be possible, he will
have to cut out much that he should have said,
but the published speech will contain the omitted
passages. On the other hand, such passages as
were uttered merely to suit the character of the
judges will not be published for the benefit of
posterity, for fear that they should seem to indicate
[p. 483]
the author's deliberate judgement instead of being
a mere concession to the needs of the moment.
[
56]
For it is most important that we should know how
the judge is disposed to listen, and his face will
often (as Cicero
25 reminds us) serve as a guide to
the speaker. Consequently we must press the points
that we see commend themselves to him, and draw
back from those which are ill-received, while our
actual language must be so modified that he will
find our arguments as intelligible as possible. That
this should be necessary is scarcely surprising, when
we consider the alterations that are frequently
necessary to suit the characters of the different
witnesses.
[
57]
He was a shrewd man who, when he
asked a rustic witness whether he knew Amphion,
and the witness replied that he did not, dropped
the aspirate and shortened the second syllable,
26
whereupon the witness recognised him at once.
Such situations, when it is impossible to speak as
we write, will sometimes make it necessary to speak
in language other than that which we use in
writing.
[
58]
There is another threefold division, whereby,
it is held, we may differentiate three styles of
speaking, all of them correct. The first is termed
the plain
27 (or
ἰσχνόν), the second grand and
forcible (or
ἁδρόν), and the third either intermediate or florid, the latter being a translation
of
ἀνθηρόν.
[
59]
The nature of these three styles is,
broadly speaking, as follows. The first would seem
best adapted for instructing, the second for moving,
and the third (by whichever name we call it) for
charming or, as others would have it, conciliating
the audience; for instruction the quality most
[p. 485]
needed is acumen, for conciliation gentleness, and
for stirring the emotions force. Consequently it is
mainly in the plain style that we shall state our
facts and advance our proofs, though it should be
borne in mind that this style will often be sufficiently
full in itself without any assistance whatever from
the other two.
[
60]
The intermediate style will have
more frequent recourse to metaphor and will make
a more attractive use of figures, while it will introduce alluring digressions, will be neat in rhythm
and pleasing in its reflexions: its flow, however, will
be gentle, like that of a river whose waters are clear,
but overshadowed by the green banks on either side.
[
61]
But he whose eloquence is like to some great torrent
that rolls down rocks and “disdains a bridge”
28 and
carves out its own banks for itself, will sweep the
judge from his feet, struggle as he may, and force
him to go whither he bears him. This is the orator
that will call the dead to life (as, for example, Cicero
calls upon Appius Caecus
29); it is in his pages
that his native land itself will cry aloud and at
times address the orator himself, as it addresses
Cicero in the speech delivered against Catiline in
the senate.
[
62]
Such an orator will also exalt his style
by amplification and rise even to
hyperbole, as when
Cicero
30 cries, “What Charybdis was ever so voracious!” or “By the god of truth, even Ocean's
self,” etc. (I choose these fine passages as being
familiar to the student). It is such an one that
will bring down the Gods to form part of his
audience or even to speak with him, as in the
following, “For on you I call, ye hills and groves
of Alba, on you, I say, ye fallen altars of the
Albans, altars that were once the peers and equals
[p. 487]
of the holy places of Rome.”
31 This is he that will
inspire anger or pity, and while he speaks the judge
will call upon the gods and weep, following him
wherever he sweeps him from one emotion to
another, and no longer asking merely for instruction.
[
63]
Wherefore if one of these three styles has to be
selected to the exclusion of the others, who will
hesitate to prefer this style to all others, since it
is by far the strongest and the best adapted to the
most important cases?
[
64]
For Homer himself assigns
to Menelaus
32 an eloquence, terse and pleasing, exact
(for that is what is meant by “making no errors in
words”) and devoid of all redundance, which qualities
are virtues of the first type: and he says that from
the lips of Nestor
33 flowed speech sweeter than honey,
than which assuredly we can conceive no greater
delight: but when he seeks to express the supreme
gift of eloquence possessed by Ulysses
34 he gives a
mighty voice and a vehemence of oratory equal to
the snows of winter in the abundance and the vigour
of its words.
[
65]
“With him then,” he says, “no mortal
will contend, and men shall look upon him as on a
god.”
35 It is this force and impetuosity that Eupolis
admires in Pericles, this that Aristophanes
36 compares
to the thunderbolt, this that is the power of true
eloquence.
[
66]
But eloquence cannot be confined even to these
three forms of style. For just as the third style is
intermediate between the grand and the plain style,
so each of these three are separated by interspaces
[p. 489]
which are occupied by intermediate styles compounded of the two which he on either side.
[
67]
For
there are styles fuller or plainer than the plain, and
gentler or more vehement than the vehement, while
the gentler style itself may either rise to greater
force or sink to milder tones. Thus we may discover
almost countless species of styles, each differing from
the other by some fine shade of difference. We may
draw a parallel from the winds. It is generally accepted that there are four blowing from the four
quarters of the globe, but we find there are also
a large number of winds which he between these,
called by a variety of names, and in certain cases
confined to certain districts and river valleys.
[
68]
The
same thing may be noted in music. For after assigning five notes to the lyre, musicians fill up the
intervals between the strings by a variety of notes,
and between these again they interpose yet others,
so that the original divisions admit of a number of
gradations.
[
69]
Eloquence has, therefore, a quantity of different
aspects, but it is sheer folly to inquire which of these
the orator should take as his model, since every
species that is in itself correct has its use, and what
is commonly called
style of speaking does not depend
on the orator. For he will use all styles, as circumstances may demand, and the choice will be
determined not only by the case as a whole, but by
the demands of the different portions of the case.
[
70]
For just as he will not speak in the same way when
he is defending a client on a capital charge and
when he is speaking in a lawsuit concerned with an
inheritance, or discussing interdicts and suits taking
the form of a wager,
37 or claims in connexion with
[p. 491]
loans, so too he will preserve a due distinction
between the speeches which he makes in the senate,
before the people and in private consultations, while
he will also introduce numerous modifications to
suit the different persons and circumstances of time
and place. Thus in one and the same speech he
will use one style for stirring the emotions, and
another to conciliate his hearers; it is from different
sources that he will derive anger or pity, and the
art which he employs in instructing the judge will
be other than that which he employs to move him.
[
71]
He will not maintain the same tone throughout his
exordium, statement of fact, arguments, digression and
peroration. He will speak gravely, severely, sharply,
with vehemence, energy, fullness, bitterness, or
geniality, quietly, simply, Hatteringly, gently, sweetly,
briefy or wittily; he will not always be like himself, but he will never be unworthy of himself.
[
72]
Thus the purpose for which oratory was above all
designed will be secured, that is to say, he will
speak with profit and with power to effect his aim,
while he will also win the praise not merely of the
learned, but of the multitude as well.
[
73]
They make the gravest mistake who consider that
the style which is best adapted to win popularity
and applause is a faulty and corrupt style of speaking
which revels in license of diction or wantons in
childish epigram or swells with stilted bombast or
riots in empty commonplace or adorns itself with
blossoms of eloquence which will fall to earth if
but lightly shaken, or regards extravagance as
sublime or raves wildly under the pretext of free
speech.
[
74]
I am ready to admit that such qualities
please many, and I feel no surprise that this should
[p. 493]
be the case. For any kind of eloquence is pleasing
and attractive to the car, and every effort of the
voice inspires a natural pleasure in the soul of man;
indeed this is the sole cause of those familiar gatherings in the Forum or on the Old Wall,
38 so that there
is small reason for wonder if any pleader is safe to
draw a ring of listeners from the crowd.
[
75]
And when
any unusually precious phrase strikes the ears of an
uneducated audience, whatever its true merits, it
wakens their admiration just for the very reason
that they feel they could never have produced it
themselves. And it deserves their admiration, since
even such success is hard to attain. On the other
hand, when such displays are compared with their
betters, they sink into insignificance and fade out
of sight, for they are like wool dyed red that
pleases in the absence of purple, but, as Ovid
39 says,
if compared with a cloak of Tyrian dye, pales in the
presence of the fairer hue.
[
76]
If, however, we test
such corrupt eloquence by the touchstone of a critical
taste, as, for example, we test inferior dyes with
sulphur, it will lay aside the false brilliance that
deceived the eye and fade to a pallor almost too
repulsive to describe. Such passages shine only in
the absence of the sunlight, just as certain tiny
insects seem transformed in the darkness to little
flames of fire. Finally, while many approve of things
that are bad, no one disapproves of that which is
good.
[
77]
But the true orator will not merely be able to
achieve all the feats of which I have spoken with
supreme excellence, but with the utmost ease as
well. For the sovereign power of eloquence and
the voice that awakens well-deserved applause will
[p. 495]
be free from the perpetual distress of harassing
anxiety which wastes and fevers the orator who
painfully corrects himself and pines away over the
laborious weighing and piecing together of his
words.
[
78]
No, our orator, brilliant, sublime and
opulent of speech, is lord and master of all the
resources of eloquence, whose affluence surrounds
him. For he that has reached the summit has no
more weary hills to scale. At first the climber's toil
is hard, but the higher he mounts the easier becomes the gradient and the richer the soil.
[
79]
And
if by perseverance of study he pass even beyond
these gentler slopes, fruits for which none have
toiled thrust themselves upon him, and all things
spring forth unbidden; and yet if they be not
gathered daily, they will wither away. But even
such wealth must observe the mean, without which
nothing is either praiseworthy or beneficial, while
brilliance must be attended by manliness, and imagination by soundness of taste.
[
80]
Thus the works
of the orator will be great not extravagant, sublime
not bombastic, bold not rash, severe but not gloomy,
grave but not slow, rich but not luxuriant, pleasing
but not effeminate, grand but not grandiose. It is
the same with other qualities: the mean is safest,
for the worst of all faults is to fly to extremes.