XXXVII. I do not know whether you have as yet seen the historical memoirs which Mucianus [a] has collected, and lately published, containing, in eleven volumes, the transactions of the times, and, in three more, the letters of eminent men who figured on the stage of public business. This portion of history is well authenticated by the original papers, still extant in the libraries of the curious. From this valuable collection it appears, that Pompey and Crassus [b] owed their elevation as much to their talents as to their fame in arms; and that Lentulus [c], Metellus, Lucullus, Curio, and others of that class, took care to enlarge their minds, and distinguish themselves by their powers of speech. To say all in one word, no man, in those times, rose to eminence in the state, who had not given proof of his genius in the forum and the tribunals of justice.
To this it may be added, that the importance, the splendour, and magnitude of the questions discussed in that period, served to animate the public orator. The subject, beyond all doubt, lifts the mind above itself: it gives vigour to sentiment, and energy to expression. Let the topic be a paltry theft, a dry form of pleading, or a petty misdemeanor; will not the orator feel himself cramped and chilled by the meanness of the question? Give him a cause of magnitude, such as bribery in the election of magistrates, a charge for plundering the allies of Rome, or the murder of Roman citizens, how different then his emotions! how sublime each sentiment! what dignity of language! The effect, it must be admitted, springs from the disasters of society. It is true, that form of government, in which no such evils occur, must, beyond all question, be allowed to be the best; but since, in the course of human affairs, sudden convulsions must happen, my position is, that they produced, at Rome, that flame of eloquence which at this hour is so much admired. The mind of the orator grows and expands with his subject. Without ample materials no splendid oration was ever yet produced. Demosthenes, I believe, did not owe his vast reputation to the speeches which he made against his guardians [d]; nor was it either the oration in defence of Quinctius, or that for Archias the poet, that established the character of Cicero. It was Catiline, it was Verres, it was Milo and Mark Antony, that spread so much glory round him.
Let me not be misunderstood: I do not say, that for the sake of hearing a bright display of eloquence, it is fit that the public peace should be disturbed by the machinations of turbulent and lawless men. But, not to lose sight of the question before us, let it be remembered, that we are enquiring about an art which thrives and flourishes most in tempestuous times. It were, no doubt, better that the public should enjoy the sweets of peace, than be harassed by the calamities of war: but still it is war that produces the soldier and great commander. It is the same with Eloquence. The oftener she is obliged, if I may so express it, to take the field, the more frequent the engagement, in which she gives and receives alternate wounds, and the more formidable her adversary; the more she rises in pomp and grandeur, and returns from the warfare of the forum crowned with unfading laurels. He, who encounters danger, is ever sure to win the suffrages of mankind. For such is the nature of the human mind, that, in general, we choose a state of security for ourselves, but never fail to gaze with admiration on the man, whom we see, in the conflict of parties, facing his adversaries, and surmounting difficulties.
XXXVIII. I proceed to another advantage of the ancient forum; I mean the form of proceeding and the rules of practice observed in those days. Our modern custom is, I grant, more conducive to truth and justice; but that of former times gave to eloquence a free career, and, by consequence, greater weight and splendour. The advocate was not, as now, confined to a few hours [a]; he might adjourn as often as it suited his convenience; he might expatiate, as his genius prompted him: and the number of days, like that of the several patrons, was unlimited. Pompey was the first who circumscribed the genius of men within narrower limits [b]. In his third consulship he gave a check to eloquence, and, as it were, bridled its spirit, but still left all causes to be tried according to law in the forum, and before the prætors. The importance of the business, which was decided in that court of justice, will be evident, if we compare it with the transactions before the centumvirs [c], who at present have cognizance of all matters whatever. We have not so much as one oration of Cicero or Cæsar, of Brutus, Cælius, or Calvus, or any other person famous for his eloquence, which was delivered before the last-mentioned jurisdiction, excepting only the speeches of Asinius Pollio [d] for the heirs of Urbinia. But those speeches were delivered about the middle of the reign of Augustus, when, after a long peace with foreign nations, and a profound tranquillity at home, that wise and politic prince had conquered all opposition, and not only triumphed over party and faction, but subdued eloquence itself.
XXXIX. What I am going to say will appear, perhaps, too minute; it may border on the ridiculous, and excite your mirth: with all my heart; I will hazard it for that very reason. The dress now in use at the bar has an air of meanness: the speaker is confined in a close robe [a], and loses all the grace of action. The very courts of judicature are another objection; all causes are heard, at present, in little narrow rooms, where spirit and strenuous exertion are unnecessary. The orator, like a generous steed, requires liberty and ample space: before a scanty tribunal his spirit droops, and the dullness of the scene damps the powers of genius. Add to this, we pay no attention to style; and indeed how should we? No time is allowed for the beauties of composition: the judge calls upon you to begin, and you must obey, liable, at the same time, to frequent interruptions, while documents are read, and witnesses examined.
During all this formality, what kind of an audience has the orator to invigorate his faculties? Two or three stragglers drop in by chance, and to them the whole business seems to be transacted in solitude. But the orator requires a different scene. He delights in clamour, tumult, and bursts of applause. Eloquence must have her theatre, as was the case in ancient times, when the forum was crowded with the first men in Rome; when a numerous train of clients pressed forward with eager expectation; when the people, in their several tribes; when ambassadors from the colonies, and a great part of Italy; attended to hear the debate; in short, when all Rome was interested in the event. We know that in the cases of Cornelius, Scaurus, Milo, Bestia, and Vatinius, the concourse was so great, that those several causes were tried before the whole body of the people. A scene so vast and magnificent was enough to inflame the most languid orator. The speeches delivered upon those occasions are in every body's hands, and, by their intrinsic excellence, we of this day estimate the genius of the respective authors.
XL. If we now consider the frequent assemblies of the people, and the right of prosecuting the most eminent men in the state; if we reflect on the glory that sprung from the declared hostility of the most illustrious characters; if we recollect, that even Scipio, Sylla, and Pompey, were not sheltered from the storms of eloquence, what a number of causes shall we see conspiring to rouse the spirit of the ancient forum! The malignity of the human heart, always adverse to superior characters, encouraged the orator to persist. The very players, by sarcastic allusions to men in power, gratified the public ear, and, by consequence, sharpened the wit and acrimony of the bold declaimer.
Need I observe to you, that in all I have said, I have not been speaking of that temperate faculty [a] which delights in quiet times, supported by its own integrity, and the virtues of moderation? I speak of popular eloquence, the genuine offspring of that licentiousness, to which fools and ill-designing men have given the name of liberty: I speak of bold and turbulent oratory, that inflamer of the people, and constant companion of sedition; that fierce incendiary, that knows no compliance, and scorns to temporize; busy, rash, and arrogant, but, in quiet and well regulated governments, utterly unknown. Who ever heard of an orator at Crete or Lacedæmon? In those states a system of rigorous discipline was established by the first principles of the constitution. Macedonian and Persian eloquence are equally unknown. The same may be said of every country, where the plan of government was fixed and uniform.
At Rhodes, indeed, and also at Athens, orators existed without number, and the reason is, in those communities the people directed every thing; a giddy multitude governed, and, to say the truth, all things were in the power of all. In like manner, while Rome was engaged in one perpetual scene of contention; while parties, factions, and internal divisions, convulsed the state; no peace in the forum, in the senate no union of sentiment; while the tribunals of justice acted without moderation; while the magistrates knew no bounds, and no man paid respect to eminent merit; in such times it must be acknowledged that Rome produced a race of noble orators; as in the wild uncultivated field the richest vegetables will often shoot up, and flourish with uncommon vigour. And yet it is fair to ask, Could all the eloquence of the Gracchi atone for the laws which they imposed on their country? Could the fame which Cicero obtained by his eloquence, compensate for the tragic end to which it brought him [b]?
XLI. The forum, at present, is the last sad relic of ancient oratory. But does that epitome of former greatness give the idea of a city so well regulated, that we may rest contented with our form of government, without wishing for a reformation of abuses? If we except the man of guilt, or such as labour under the hard hand of oppression, who resorts to us for our assistance? If a municipal city applies for protection, it is, when the inhabitants, harassed by the adjacent states, or rent and torn by intestine divisions, sue for protection. The province, that addresses the senate for a redress of grievances, has been oppressed and plundered, before we hear of the complaint. It is true, we vindicate the injured, but to suffer no oppression would surely be better than to obtain relief. Find, if you can, in any part of the world a wise and happy community, where no man offends against the laws: in such a nation what can be the use of oratory? You may as well profess the healing art where ill health is never known. Let men enjoy bodily vigour, and the practice of physic will have no encouragement. In like manner, where sober manners prevail, and submission to the authority of government is the national virtue, the powers of persuasion are rendered useless. Eloquence has lost her field of glory. In the senate, what need of elaborate speeches, when all good men are already of one mind? What occasion for studied harangues before a popular assembly, where the form of government leaves nothing to the decision of a wild democracy, but the whole administration is conducted by the wisdom of a single ruler? And again; when crimes are rare, and in fact of no great moment, what avails the boasted right of individuals to commence a voluntary prosecution? What necessity for a studied defence, often composed in a style of vehemence, artfully addressed to the passions, and generally stretched beyond all bounds, when justice is executed in mercy, and the judge is of himself disposed to succour the distressed?
Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic, and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence, the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times. Upon the whole, since no man can enjoy a state of calm tranquillity, and, at the same time, raise a great and splendid reputation; to be content with the benefits of the age in which we live, without detracting from our ancestors, is the virtue that best becomes us.
XLII. Maternus concluded [a] his discourse. There have been, said Messala, some points advanced, to which I do not entirely accede; and others, which I think require farther explanation. But the day is well nigh spent. We will, therefore, adjourn the debate. Be it as you think proper, replied Maternus; and if, in what I have said, you find any thing not sufficiently clear, we will adjust those matters in some future conference. Hereupon he rose from his seat, and embracing Aper, I am afraid, he said, that it will fare hardly with you, my good friend. I shall cite you to answer before the poets, and Messala will arraign you at the bar of the antiquarians. And I, replied Aper, shall make reprisals on you both before the school professors and the rhetoricians. This occasioned some mirth and raillery. We laughed, and parted in good humour.
END OF THE DIALOGUE.
The scene of the following Dialogue is laid in the sixth year of Vespasian, A.U.C. 828. A.D. 75. The commentators are much divided in their opinions about the real author; his work they all agree is a masterpiece in the kind; written with taste and judgement; entertaining, profound, and elegant. But whether it is to be ascribed to Tacitus, Quintilian, or any other person whom they cannot name, is a question upon which they have exhausted a store of learning. They have given us, according to their custom, much controversy, and little decision. In this field of conjecture Lipsius led the way. He published, in 1574, the first good edition of Tacitus, with emendations of the text, and not removed; he still remains in suspense. Cum multa dixerim, claudo tamen omnia hoc responso; MIHI NON LIQUERE. Gronovius Pichena, Ryckius, Rhenanus, and others, have entered warmly into the dispute. An elegant modern writer has hazarded a new conjecture. The last of Sir Thomas Fitzosborne's Letters is a kind of preface to Mr. Melmoth's Translation of the Dialogue before us. He says; of all the conversation pieces, whether ancient or modern, either of the moral or polite kind, he knows not one more elegantly written than the little anonymous Dialogue concerning the rise and decline of eloquence among the Romans. He calls it anonymous, though he is aware, that it has been ascribed not only to Tacitus and Quintilian, but even to Suetonius. The reasons, however, are so inconclusive, that he is inclined to give it to the younger Pliny. He thinks it perfectly coincides with Pliny's age; it is addressed to one of his particular friends, and is marked with similar expressions and sentiments. But, with all due submission to Mr. Melmoth, his new candidate cannot long hold us in suspense. It appears in the account of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in which Pliny's uncle lost his life. A.U.C. 832. A.D. 79, that Pliny was then eighteen years old, and, as the Dialogue was in 828, he could then be no more than fourteen; a time of life, when he was neither fit to be admitted to a learned debate, nor capable of understanding it. Besides this, two letters to his friend FABIUS are still extant; one in the first book, epist. 11; the other, book vii. epist. 2. No mention of the Dialogue occurs in either of those letters, nor in any other part of his works; a circumstance, which could scarce have happened to a writer so tenderly anxious about his literary character, if the work in question had been the production of his part. Brotier, the last, and, it may be said, the best of all the editors of Tacitus, is of opinion that a tract, so beautiful and judicious, ought not, without better reasons than have been as yet assigned, to be adjudged from Tacitus to any other writer. He relies much on the first edition, which was published at Venice (1468), containing the last six books of the Annals (the first six not being then found), the five books of the History, and the Dialogue, intitled, Cornelii Taciti Equitis Romani Dialogus de Oratoribus claris. There were also in the Vatican, manuscript copies of the Dialogue de Oratoribus. In 1515, when the six first Annals were found in Germany, a new edition, under the patronage of Leo X. was published by Beroaldus, carefully collated with the manuscript, which was afterwards placed in the Florentine Library. Those early authorities preponderate with Brotier against all modern conjecture; more especially, since the age of Tacitus agrees with the time of the Dialogue. He was four years older than his friend Pliny, and, at eighteen, might properly be allowed by his friends to be of their party. In two years afterwards (A.U. 830), he married Agricola's daughter, and he expressly says, (Life of Agricola, sect. ix.) that he was then a very young man. The arguments, drawn by the several commentators from the difference of style, Brotier thinks are of no weight. The style of a young author will naturally differ from what he has settled by practice at an advanced period of life. This has been observed in many eminent writers, and in none more than Lipsius himself. His language, in the outset, was easy, flowing, and elegant; but, as he advanced in years, it became stiff, abrupt, and harsh. Tacitus relates a conversation on a literary subject; and in such a piece, who can expect to find the style of an historian or an annalist? For these reasons Brotier thinks that this Dialogue may, with good reason, be ascribed to Tacitus. The translator enters no farther into the controversy, than to say, that in a case where certainty cannot be obtained, we must rest satisfied with the best evidence the nature of the thing will admit. The dispute is of no importance; for, as Lipsius says, whether we give the Dialogue to Quintilian or to Tacitus, no inconvenience can arise. Whoever was the author, it is a performance of uncommon beauty.
Before we close this introduction, it will not be improper to say a word or two about Brotier's Supplement. In the wreck of ancient literature a considerable part of this Dialogue has perished, and, by consequence, a chasm is left, much to be lamented by every reader of taste. To avoid the inconvenience of a broken context, Brotier has endeavoured to compensate for the loss. What he has added, will be found in the progress of the work; and as it is executed by the learned editor with great elegance, and equal probability, it is hoped that the insertion of it will be more agreeable to the reader, than a dull pause of melancholy regret.
Section I.
[a] Justus Fabius was consul A.U.C. 864, A.D. 111. But as he did not begin the year, his name does not appear in the FASTI CONSULARES. There are two letters to him from his friend Pliny; the first, lib. i. epist. 11; the other, lib. vii. ep. 2. it is remarkable, that in the last, the author talks of sending some of his writings for his friend's perusal; quæram quid potissimum ex nugis meis tibi exhibeam; but not a word is said about the decline of eloquence.
Section II.
[a] Concerning Maternus nothing is known with any kind of certainty. Dio relates that a sophist, of that name, was put to death by Domitian, for a school declamation against tyrants: but not one of the commentators ventures to assert that he was the Curiatius Maternus, who makes so conspicuous a figure in the Dialogue before us.
[b] No mention is made of Marcus Aper, either by Quintilian or Pliny. It is supposed that he was father of Marcus Flavius Aper, who was substituted consul A.U.C. 883, A.D. 130. His oratorical character, and that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius. Crassus, he says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece. Antonius, on the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void of education. In this manner they both expected to increase their popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not knowing them. Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum hominum in omni genere prudentiam Græcis anteferre. Antonius autem probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omninò didicisse nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Græcos videretur. Cicero De Orat. lib. ii. cap. 1.
[c] Quintilian makes honourable mention of Julius Secundus, who, if he had not been prematurely cut off, would have transmitted his name to posterity among the most celebrated orators. He would have added, and he was daily doing it, whatever was requisite to complete his oratorical genius; and all that could be desired, was more vigour in argument, and more attention to matter and sentiment, than to the choice of words. But he died too soon, and his fame was, in some degree, intercepted. He has, notwithstanding, left a considerable name. His diction was rich and copious; he explained every thing with grace and elegance; his periods flowed with a suavity that charmed his audience; his language, when metaphorical, was bold, yet accurate; and, if he hazarded an unusual phrase, he was justified by the energy with which his meaning was conveyed. Julio Secundo, si longior contigisset ætas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros foret. Adjecisset enim, atque adjiciebat, cæteris virtutibus suis, quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax, et sæpius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. Cæterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum. Ea est facundia, tanta in explicando, quod velit, gratia; tam candidum, et lene, et speciosum dicendi genus; tanta verborum, etiam quæ assumpta sunt, proprietas; tanta in quibusdam, ex periculo petitis, significantia. Quintil. lib. x. s. 1. It is remarkable, that Quintilian, in his list of Roman orators, has neither mentioned Maternus, nor Marcus Aper. The Dialogue, for that reason, seems to be improperly ascribed to him: men who figure so much in the enquiry concerning oratory, would not have been omitted by the critic who thought their conversation worth recording.
Section III.
[a] Thyestes was a common and popular subject of ancient tragedy.
[b] It was the custom of the colonies and municipal towns, to pay their court to some great orator at Rome, in order to obtain his patronage, whenever they should have occasion to apply to the senate for a redress of grievances.
[c] Domitius was another subject of tragedy, taken from the Roman story. Who he was, does not clearly appear. Brotier thinks it was Domitius, the avowed enemy of Julius Cæsar, who moved in the senate for a law to recall that general from the command of the army in Gaul, and, afterwards, on the breaking out of the civil war, fell bravely at the battle of Pharsalia. See Suetonius, Life of Nero, section 2. Such a character might furnish the subject of a tragedy. The Roman poets were in the habit of enriching their drama with domestic occurrences, and the practice was applauded by Horace.
Section V.
[a] There were at Rome several eminent men of the name of Bassus. With regard to the person here called Saleius Bassus, the commentators have not been able to glean much information. Some have contended that it was to him Persius addressed his sixth satire:
But if we may believe the old scholiast, his name was CÆSIUS BASSUS, a much admired lyric poet, who was living on his own farm, at the time when Mount Vesuvius discharged its torrents of fire, and made the country round a scene of desolation. The poet and his house were overwhelmed by the eruption of the lava, which happened A.U. 832, in the reign of Titus. Quintilian says of him (b. x. chap. 1.), that if after Horace any poet deserves to be mentioned, Cæsius Bassus was the man. Si quem adjicere velis, is erit Cæsius Bassus. Saleius Bassus is mentioned by Juvenal as an eminent poet in distress:
Quintilian says, he possessed a poetic genius, but so warm and vehement, that, even in an advanced age, his spirit was not under the control of sober judgement. Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEII BASSI fuit; nec ipsum senectute maturum. This passage affords an insuperable argument against Lipsius, and the rest of the critics who named Quintilian as a candidate for the honour of this elegant composition. Can it be imagined that a writer of fair integrity, would in his great work speak of Bassus as he deserved, and in the Dialogue overrate him beyond all proportion? Duplicity was not a part of Quintilian's character.
[b] Tacitus, it may be presumed with good reason, was a diligent reader of Cicero, Livy, Sallust, and Seneca. He has, in various parts of his works, coincidences of sentiment and diction, that plainly shew the source from which they sprung. In the present case, when he calls eloquence a buckler to protect yourself, and a weapon to annoy your adversary, can anyone doubt but he had his eye on the following sentence in Cicero de Oratore? Quid autem tam necessarium, quam tenere semper arma, quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis, vel provocare integros, et te ulcisci lacessitus?
[c] Eprius Marcellus is often a conspicuous figure in the Annals and the History of Tacitus. To a bad heart he united the gift of eloquence. In the Annals, b. xvi. s. 28, he makes a vehement speech against Pætus Thrasea, and afterwards wrought the destruction of that excellent man. For that exploit, he was attacked, in the beginning of Vespasian's reign, by Helvidius Priscus. In the History (book iv. s. 7 and 8) we see them both engaged in a violent contention. In the following year (823), Helvidius in the senate opened an accusation in form; but Marcellus, by using his eloquence as his buckler and his offensive weapon, was able to ward off the blow. He rose from his seat, and, "I leave you," he said, "I leave you to give the law to the senate: reign, if you will, even in the presence of the prince." See Hist. iv. s. 43. See also, Life of Agricola, s. 11. notes a and b.
Section VI.
[a] To be rich and have no issue, gave to the person so circumstanced the highest consequence at Rome. All ranks of men paid their court to him. To discourage a life of celibacy, and promote population, Augustus passed a law, called Papia Poppæa, whereby bachelors were subjected to penalties. Hence the compliment paid by Horace to his patron:
But marriage was not brought into fashion. In proportion to the rapid degeneracy of the manners under the emperors, celibacy grew into respect; insomuch, that we find (Annals xii. s. 52) a man too strong for his prosecutors, because he was rich, old, and childless. Valuitque pecuniosâ orbitate et senectâ.
[b] The faculty of speaking on a sudden question, with unpremeditated eloquence, Quintilian says, is the reward of study and diligent application. The speech, composed at leisure, will often want the warmth and energy, which accompany the rapid emotions of the mind. The passions, when roused and animated, and the images which present themselves in a glow of enthusiasm, are the inspirers of true eloquence. Composition has not always this happy effect; the process is slow; languor is apt to succeed; the passions subside, and the spirit of the discourse evaporates. Maximus vero studiorum fructus est, et velut præmium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris, ex tempore dicendi facultas. Pectus est enim quod disertos facit, et vis mentis. Nam benè concepti affectus, et recentes rerum imagines, continuo impetu feruntur, quæ nonnunquam morâ stili refrigescunt, et dilatæ won revertuntur. Quintilian. lib. x. cap. 7.
Section VII.
[a] The translation is not quite accurate in this place. The original says, when I obtained the laticlave, and the English calls it the manly gown, which, it must be admitted, is not the exact sense. The toga virilis, or the manly gown, was assumed, when the youth came to man's estate, or the age of seventeen years. On that occasion the friends of the young man conducted him to the forum (or sometimes to the capitol), and there invested him with the new gown. This was called dies tirocinii; the day on which he commenced a tiro, or a candidate for preferment in the army. The laticlave, was an additional honour often granted at the same time. The sons of senators and patricians were entitled to that distinction, as a matter of right: but the young men, descended from such as were not patricians, did not wear the laticlave, till they entered into the service of the commonwealth, and undertook the functions of the civil magistracy. Augustus Cæsar changed that custom. He gave leave to the sons of senators, in general, to assume the laticlave presently after the time of putting on the toga virilis, though they were not capable of civil honours. The emperors who succeeded, allowed the same privilege, as a favour to illustrious families. Ovid speaks of himself and his brother assuming the manly gown and the laticlave at the same time:
Pliny the younger shews, that the laticlave was a favour granted by the emperor on particular occasions. He says, he applied for his friend, and succeeded: Ego Sexto latumclavum a Cæsare nostro impetravi. Lib. ii. epist. 9. The latusclavus was a robe worn by consuls, prætors, generals in triumph, and senators, who were called laticlavii. Their sons were admitted to the same honour; but the emperors had a power to bestow this garment of distinction, and all privileges belonging to it, upon such as they thought worthy of that honour. This is what Marcus Aper says, in the Dialogue, that he obtained; and, when the translation mentions the manly gown, the expression falls short of the speaker's idea. Dacier has given an account of the laticlave, which has been well received by the learned. He tells us, that whatever was made to be put on another thing, was called clavus, not because it had any resemblance to a nail, but because it was made an adjunct to another subject. In fact, the clavi were purple galloons, with which the Romans bordered the fore part of the tunic, on both sides, and when drawn close together, they formed an ornament in the middle of the vestment. It was, for that reason, called by the Greeks, [Greek: mesoporphuron]. The broad galloons made the laticlave, and the narrow the angusticlave. The laticlave, Dacier adds, is not to be confounded with the prætexta. The latter was, at first, appropriated to the magistrates, and the sacerdotal order; but, in time, was extended to the sons of eminent families, to be worn as a mark of distinction, till the age of seventeen, when it was laid aside for the manly gown. See Dacier's Horace, lib. i. sat. 5; and see Kennet's Roman Antiquities, p. 306.
[b] Marcus Aper, Julius Secundus, and Curiatius Maternus, according to Brotier and others, were natives of Gaul. Aper (section x.) mentions the Gauls as their common countrymen: Ne quid de Gallis nostris loquamur. If that was the fact, a new man at Rome would have difficulties to surmount. Ammianus Marcellinus (a Latin historian of the fourth century) says, that at Rome the people despised every thing that did not grow before their eyes within the walls of the city, except the rich who had no children; and the veneration paid to such as had no heirs was altogether incredible. Vile esse quidquid extra urbis pomærium nascitur, æstimant; nec credi potest qua obsequiorum diversitate coluntur homines sine liberis Romæ. Lib. xiv. s. 5. In such a city a young man and a stranger could not expect to be favoured.
[c] All causes of a private nature were heard before the centumviri. Three were chosen out of every tribe, and the tribes amounted to five and thirty, so that in fact 105 were chosen; but, for the sake of a round number, they were called CENTUMVIRI. The causes that were heard before that jurisdiction are enumerated by Cicero, De Orat. lib. i. s. 38.
[d] The translation says, the wills and codicils of the rich; but it is by no means certain that those words convey the meaning of the text, which simply says, nec codicillis datur. After due enquiry, it appears that codicillus was used by the Latin authors, for what we now call the letters patent of a prince. Codicils, in the modern sense of the word, implying a supplement to a will, were unknown to the intent Roman law. The Twelve Tables mention testaments only. Codicils, in aid to wills, were first introduced in the time of Augustus; but, whatever their operation was, legacies granted by those additional writings were for some time of no validity. To confirm this, we are told that the daughter of Lentulus discharged certain legacies, which, being given by codicil, she was not bound to pay. In time, however, codicils, as an addition made by the testator to his will, grew into use, and the legacies thereby granted were confirmed. This might be the case in the sixth year of Vespasian, when the Dialogue passed between the parties; but it is, notwithstanding, highly probable, that the word codicilli means, in the passage before us, the letters patent of the prince. It is used in that sense by Suetonius, who relates, that Tiberius, after passing a night and two days in revelling with Pomponius Flaccus and Lucius Piso, granted to the former the province of Syria, and made the latter prefect of the city; declaring them, in the patents, pleasant companions, and the friends of all hours. Codicillis quoque jucundissimos et omnium horarum amicos professus. Suet. in Tib. s. 42.
[e] The common people are called, in the original, tunicatus populus; that class of men, who wore the tunic, and not the toga, or the Roman gown. The tunica, or close coat, was the common garment worn within doors, and abroad, under the toga. Kennet says, the proletarii, the capite censi, and the rest of the dregs of the city, could not afford to wear the toga, and therefore went in their tunics; whence Horace says (lib. i. epist. 7).
The TOGA, however, was the peculiar dress of the Roman people. VIRGIL distinguishes his countrymen by their mode of apparel:
But, though this was the Roman habit, the lower citizens were obliged to appear abroad is their tunica, or close garment. The love of praise is so eager a passion, that the public orator is here represented as delighting in the applause of the rabble. Persius, the satirist, has said the same thing:
Section VIII.
[a] The character of Eprius Marcellus has been already stated, section v. note [c]. Crispus Vibius is mentioned as a man of weight and influence, Annals, book xiv. s. 28. Quintilian has mentioned him to his advantage: he calls him, book v. chap. 13, a man of agreeable and elegant talents, vir ingenii jucundi et elegantis; and again, Vibius Crispus was distinguished by the elegance of his composition, and the sweetness of his manner; a man born to please, but fitter for private suits, than for the importance of public causes. Et VIBIUS CRISPUS, compositus, et jucundus, et delectationi natus; privatis tamen causis, quam publicis, melior. Lib. x. cap. 1.
[b] Which of these two men was born at Capua, and which at Vercellæ, is not clearly expressed in the original. Eprius Marcellus, who has been described of a prompt and daring spirit, ready to embark in every mischief, and by his eloquence able to give colour to the worst cause, must at this time have become a new man, since we find him mentioned in this Dialogue with unbounded praise. He, it seems, and Vibius Crispus were the favourites at Vespasian's court. Vercellæ, now Verceil, was situated in the eastern part of Piedmont. Capua, rendered famous by Hannibal, was a city in Campania, always deemed the seat of pleasure.
[c] Vespasian is said to have been what is uncommon among sovereign princes, a patient hearer of truth. His attention to men of letters may be considered as a proof of that assertion. The younger Pliny tells us, that his uncle, the author of the Natural History, used to visit Vespasian before day-light, and gained admittance to the emperor, who devoted his nights to study. Ante lucem ibat ad Vespasianum imperatorem: nam ille quoque noctibus utebatur. Lib. iii. epist. 5.