For dexterity in argument, the orator is referred to this school, for the reason given by Quintilian, who says that the custom of supporting an argument on either side of the question, approaches nearest to the orator's practice in forensic causes. Academiam quidam utilissimam credunt, quod mos in utramque partem disserendi ad exercitationem forensium causarum proximè accedat. Lib. xii. cap. 2 Quintilian assures us that we are indebted to the academic philosophy for the ablest orators, and it is to that school that Horace sends his poet for instruction:

[d] Epicurus made frequent use of the rhetorical figure called exclamation; and in his life, by Diogenes Lærtius, we find a variety of instances. It is for that manner of giving animation to a discourse that Epicurus is mentioned in the Dialogue. For the rest, Quintilian tells us what to think of him. Epicurus, he says, dismisses the orator from his school, since he advises his pupil to pay no regard to science or to method. Epicurus imprimis nos a se ipse dimittit, qui fugere omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima jubet. Lib. xii. cap. 2. Metrodorus was the favourite disciple of Epicurus. Brotier says that a statue of the master and the scholar, with their heads joined together, was found at Rome in the year 1743.

It is worthy of notice, that except the stoics, who, without aiming at elegance of language, argued closely and with vigour, Quintilian proscribes the remaining sects of philosophers. Aristippus, he says, placed his summum bonum in bodily pleasure, and therefore could be no friend to the strict regimen of the accomplished orator. Much less could Pyrrho be of use, since he doubted whether there was any such thing in existence as the judges before whom the cause must be pleaded. To him the party accused, and the senate, were alike non-entities. Neque vero Aristippus, summum in voluptate corpora bonum ponens, ad hunc nos laborem adhortetur. Pyrrho quidem, quas in hoc opere partes habere potest? cui judices esse apud quos verba faciat, et reum pro quo loquatur, et senatum, in quo sit dicenda sententia, non liquebat. Quintil. lib. xii. cap. 2.

Section XXXII.

[a] We are told by Quintilian, that Demosthenes, the great orator of Greece, was an assiduous hearer of Plato: Constat Demosthenem, principem omnium Græciæ oratorum, dedisse operam Platoni. Lib. xii. cap. 2. And Cicero expressly says, that, if he might venture to call himself an orator, he was made so, not by the manufacture of the schools of rhetoric, but in the walks of the Academy. Fateor me oratorem, si modo sim, aut etiam quicumque sim, non ex rhetorum officinis, sed ex Academiæ spatiis extitisse. Ad Brutum Orator, s. 12.

Section XXXIII.

[a] The ancient critics made a wide distinction, between a mere facility of speech, and what they called the oratorical faculty. This is fully explained by Asinius Pollio, who said of himself, that by pleading at first with propriety, he succeeded so far as to be often called upon; by pleading frequently, he began to lose the propriety with which he set out; and the reason was, by constant practice he acquired rashness, not a just confidence in himself; a fluent facility, not the true faculty of an orator. Commodè agenda factum est, ut sæpe agerem; sæpe agenda, ut minus commodè; quia scilicet nimia facilitas magis quam facultas, nec fiducia, sed temeritas, paratur. Quintil. lib. xii.

Section XXXIV.

[a] There is in this place a trifling mistake, either in Messala, the speaker, or in the copyists. Crassus was born A.U.C. 614. See s. xviii. note [f]. Papirius Carbo, the person accused, was consul A.U.C. 634, and the prosecution was in the following year, when Crassus expressly says, that he was then only one and twenty. Quippe qui omnium maturrimè ad publicas causas accesserim, annosque natus UNUM ET VIGINTI, nobilissimum hominem et eloquentissimum in judicium vocârim. Cicero, De Orat. lib. iii. s. 74. Pliny the consul was another instance of early pleading. He says himself, that he began his career in the forum at the age of nineteen, and, after long practice, he could only see the functions of an orator as it were in a mist. Undevicessimo ætatis anno dicere in foro cœpi, et nunc demum, quid præstare debeat orator, adhuc tamen per caliginem video. Lib. v. epist. 8. Quintilian relates of Cæsar, Calvus, and Pollio, that they all three appeared at the bar, long before they arrived at their quæstorian age, which was seven and twenty. Calvus, Cæsar, Pollio, multum ante quæstoriam omnes ætatem gravissima judicia susceperunt. Quintilian, lib. xii. cap. 6.

Section XXXV.

[a] Lipsius, in his note on this passage, says, that he once thought the word scena in the text ought to be changed to schola; but he afterwards saw his mistake. The place of fictitious declamation and spurious eloquence, where the teachers played a ridiculous part, was properly called a theatrical scene.

[b] Lucius Licinius Crassus and Domitius Ænobarbus were censors A.U.C. 662. Crassus himself informs us, that, for two years together, a new race of men, called Rhetoricians, or masters of eloquence, kept open schools at Rome, till he thought fit to exercise his censorian authority, and by an edict to banish the whole tribe from the city of Rome; and this, he says, he did, not, as some people suggested, to hinder the talents of youth from being cultivated, but to save their genius from being corrupted, and the young mind from being confirmed in shameless ignorance. Audacity was all the new masters could teach; and this being the only thing to be acquired on that stage of impudence, he thought it the duty of a Roman censor to crush the mischief in the bud. Latini (sic diis placet) hoc biennio magistri dicendi extiterunt; quos ego censor edicto meo sustuleram; non quo (ut nescio quos dicere aiebant) acui ingenia adolescentium nollem, sed, contra, ingenia obtundi nolui, corroborari impudentiam. Hos vero novos magistros nihil intelligebam posse docere, nisi ut auderent. Hoc cum unum traderetur, et cum impudentiæ ludus esset, putavi esse censoris, ne longius id serperet, providere. De Orat. lib. iii. s. 93 and 94. Aulus Gellius mentions a former expulsion of the rhetoricians, by a decree of the senate, in the consulship of Fannius Strabo and Valerius Messala, A.U.C. 593. He gives the words of the decree, and also of the edict, by which the teachers were banished by Crassus, several years after. See A. Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, lib. xv. cap. 2. See also Suetonius, De Claris Rhet. s. 1.

[c] Seneca has left a collection of declamations in the two kinds, viz. the persuasive, and controversial. See his SUASORIÆ, and CONTROVERSIÆ. In the first class, the questions are, Whether Alexander should attempt the Indian ocean? Whether he should enter Babylon, when the augurs denounced impending danger? Whether Cicero, to appease the wrath of Marc Antony, should burn all his works? The subjects in the second class are more complex. A priestess was taken prisoner by a band of pirates, and sold to slavery. The purchaser abandoned her to prostitution. Her person being rendered venal, a soldier made his offers of gallantry. She desired the price of her prostituted charms; but the military man resolved to use force and insolence, and she stabbed him in the attempt. For this she was prosecuted, and acquitted. She then desired to be restored to her rank of priestess: that point was decided against her. These instances may serve as a specimen of the trifling declamations, into which such a man as Seneca was betrayed by his own imagination. Petronius has described the literary farce of the schools. Young men, he says, were there trained up in folly, neither seeing nor hearing any thing that could be of use in the business of life. They were taught to think of nothing, but pirates loaded with fetters on the sea-shore; tyrants by their edicts commanding sons to murder their fathers; the responses of oracles demanding a sacrifice of three or more virgins, in order to abate an epidemic pestilence. All these discourses, void of common sense, are tricked out in the gaudy colours of exquisite eloquence, soft, sweet, and seasoned to the palate. In this ridiculous boy's-play the scholars trifle away their time; they are laughed at in the forum, and still worse, what they learn in their youth they do not forget at an advanced age. Ego adolescentulos existimo in scholis stultissimos fieri, quia nihil ex iis, quæ in usu habemus, aut audiunt aut vident; sed piratas cum catenis in littore stantes, et tyrannos edicta scribentes, quibus imperent filiis, ut patrum suorum capita præcidant; sed responsa in pestilentiâ data, ut virgines tres aut plures immolentur; sed mellitos verborum globos, et omnia dicta factaque quasi papavere et sesamo sparsa. Nunc pueri in scholis ludunt; juvenes ridentur in foro; et, quod utroque turpius est, quod quisque perperam discit, in senectute confiteri non vult. Petron. in Satyrico, cap. 3 and 4.

[d] Here unfortunately begins a chasm in the original. The words are, Cum ad veros judices ventum est, * * * * rem cogitare * * * * nihil humile, nihil abjectum eloqui poterat. This is unintelligible. What follows from the words magna eloquentia sicut flamma, palpably belongs to Maternus, who is the last speaker in the Dialogue. The whole of what Secundus said is lost. The expedient has been, to divide the sequel between Secundus and Maternus; but that is mere patch-work. We are told in the first section of the Dialogue, that the several persons present spoke their minds, each in his turn assigning different but probable causes, and at times agreeing on the same. There can, therefore, be no doubt but Secundus took his turn in the course of the enquiry. Of all the editors of Tacitus, Brotier is the only one who has adverted to this circumstance. To supply the loss, as well as it can now be done by conjecture, that ingenious commentator has added a Supplement, with so much taste, and such a degree of probability, that it has been judged proper to adopt what he has added. The thread of the discourse will be unbroken, and the reader, it is hoped, will prefer a regular continuity to a mere vacant space. The inverted comma in the margin of the text [transcriber's note: not used, but numbered with decimal rather than Roman numerals] will mark the supplemental part, as far as section 36, where the original proceeds to the end of the Dialogue. The sections of the Supplement will be marked, for the sake of distinction, with figures, instead of the Roman numeral letters.

SUPPLEMENT.

Section 1.

[a] Petronius says, you may as well expect that the person, who is for ever shut up in a kitchen, should be sweet and fresh, as that young men, trained up in such absurd and ridiculous interludes, should improve their taste or judgement. Qui inter hæc nutriuntur, non magis sapere possunt, quam bene olere, qui in culiná habitant. Petronius, in Satyrico, s. 2.

Section 2.

[a] The means by which an orator is nourished, formed, and raised to eminence, are here enumerated. These are the requisites, that lead to that distinguished eloquence, which is finely described by Petronius, when he says, a sublime oration, but sublime within due bounds, is neither deformed with affectation, nor turgid in any part, but, depending on truth and simplicity, rises to unaffected grandeur. Grandis, et, ut ita dicam, pudica oratio, non est maculosa, nec turgida, sed naturali pulchritudine exsurgit. Petronius, in Satyrico, s. 2.

Section 3.

[a] Maternus engaged for himself and Secundus, that they would communicate their sentiments: see s. 16. In consequence of that promise, Messala now calls upon them both. They have already declared themselves admirers of ancient eloquence. It now remains to be known, whether they agree with Messala as to the cause that occasioned a rapid decline: or whether they can produce new reasons of their own.

Section 4.

[a] Secundus proceeds to give his opinion. This is managed by Brotier with great art and judgement, since it is evident in the original text that Maternus closed the debate. According to what is said in the introduction to the Dialogue, Secundus agrees with Messala upon most points, but still assigns different, but probable reasons. A revolution, he says, happened in literature; a new taste prevailed, and the worst models were deemed worthy of imitation. The emotions of the heart were suppressed. Men could no longer yield to the impulse of genius. They endeavoured to embellish their composition with novelty; they sparkled with wit, and amused their readers with point, antithesis, and forced conceits. They fell into the case of the man, who, according to Martial, was ingenious, but not eloquent:

[b] Enough, perhaps, has been already said in the notes, concerning the teachers of rhetoric; but it will not be useless to cite one passage more from Petronius, who in literature, as well as convivial pleasure, may be allowed to be arbiter elegantiarum. The rhetoricians, he says, came originally from Asia; they were, however, neither known to Pindar, and the nine lyric poets, nor to Plato, or Demosthenes. They arrived at Athens in evil hour, and imported with them that enormous frothy loquacity, which at once, like a pestilence, blasted all the powers of genius, and established the rules of corrupt eloquence. Nondum umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat, cum Pindarus novemque lyrici Homericis versibus canere non timuerunt. Certe neque Platona, neque Demosthenem, ad hoc genus exercitationis accessisse video. Nuper ventosa isthæc et enormis loquacitas Athenas ex Asia commigravit, animosque juvenum ad magna surgentes veluti pestilenti quodam sidere afflavit; simulque corruptæ eloquentiæ regula stetit et obtinuit. Petron. Satyricon, s. 2.

Section 5.

[a] When the public taste was vitiated, and to elevate and surprise, as Bayes says, was the new way of writing, Seneca is, with good reason, ranked in the class of ingenious, but affected authors. Menage says, if all the books in the world were in the fire, there is not one, whom he would so eagerly snatch from the flames as Plutarch. That author never tires him; he reads him often, and always finds new beauties. He cannot say the same of Seneca; not but there are admirable passages in his works, but when brought to the test they lose their apparent beauty by a close examination. Seneca serves to be quoted in the warmth of conversation, but is not of equal value in the closet. Whatever be the subject, he wishes to shine, and, by consequence, his thoughts are too refined, and often false. Menagiana, tom. ii. p. 1.

Section 6.

[a] This charge against Seneca is by no means new. Quintilian was his contemporary; he saw and heard the man, and, in less than twenty years after his death, pronounced judgement against him. In the conclusion of the first chapter of his tenth book, after having given an account of the Greek and Roman authors, he says, he reserved Seneca for the last place, because, having always endeavoured to counteract the influence of a bad taste, he was supposed to be influenced by motives of personal enmity. But the case was otherwise. He saw that Seneca was the favourite of the times, and, to check the torrent that threatened the ruin of all true eloquence, he exerted his best efforts to diffuse a sounder judgement. He did not wish that Seneca should be laid aside: but he could not in silence see him preferred to the writers of the Augustan age, whom that writer endeavoured to depreciate, conscious that, having chosen a different style, he could not hope to please the taste of those who were charmed with the authors of a former day. But Seneca was still in fashion; his partisans continued to admire, though it cannot be said that they imitated him. He fell short of the ancients, and they were still more beneath their model. Since they were content to copy, it were to be wished that they had been able to vie with him. He pleased by his defects, and the herd of imitators chose the worst. They acquired a vicious manner, and flattered themselves that they resembled their master. But the truth is, they disgraced him. Seneca, it must be allowed, had many great and excellent qualities; a lively imagination, vast erudition, and extensive knowledge. He frequently employed others to make researches for him, and was often deceived. He embraced all subjects; in his philosophy, not always profound, but a keen censor of the manners, and on moral subjects truly admirable. He has brilliant passages, and beautiful sentiments; but the expression is in a false taste, the more dangerous, as he abounds with delightful vices. You would have wished that he had written with his own imagination, and the judgement of others. To sum up his character; had he known how to rate little things, had he been above the petty ambition of always shining, had he not been fond of himself, had he not weakened his force by minute and dazzling sentences, he would have gained, not the admiration of boys, but the suffrage of the judicious. At present he may be read with safety by those who have made acquaintance with better models. His works afford the fairest opportunity of distinguishing the beauties of fine writing from their opposite vices. He has much to be approved, and even admired: but a just selection is necessary, and it is to be regretted that he did not choose for himself. Such was the judgement of Quintilian: the learned reader will, perhaps, be glad to have the whole passage in the author's words, rather than be referred to another book. Ex industriâ Senecam, in omni genere eloquentiæ versatum, distuli, propter vulgatam falso de me opinionem, quâ damnare eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. Quod, accidit mihi, dum corruptum, et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora judicia contendo. Tum autem solus hic fere in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quem non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus præferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum, diversi sibi conscius generis, placere se in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent, diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis, quàm imitabantur; tantumque ab illo defluebant, quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum, pares, aut saltem proximos, illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia, et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quæ poterat. Deinde cum se jactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cujus et multæ alioqui et magnæ virtutes fuerunt; ingenium facile et copiosum; plurimum studii; et multarum rerum cognitio, in quâ tamen aliquando ab iis, quibus inquirenda quædam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractavit etiam omnem ferè studiorum materiam; In philosophiâ parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator. Multa in eo claræque sententiæ; multa etiam morum gratiâ legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis. Velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno judicio. Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset; si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quàm puerorum amore comprobaretur. Verùm sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest utrimque judicium. Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curæ sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance, traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette: Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos; he adds, that such affected finery is not the true ornament of a man. Non est ornamentum virile, concinnitas. And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth and dignified simplicity. The marvellous was with him better than the natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's Belles Lettres, vol. i. sur le Gout. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was, undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds. His fault was, exuberance. Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere, says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic. With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and manner infected every branch of literature. The tribe of imitators had not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste goes round from one to another. Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age. Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. He adopted the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons, the Abbé Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that, during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never revived.

Section 7.

[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time, that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a sufficient apology for his love of money.

[b] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of every liberal art. Even that monster Domitian was versed in polite learning, and by fits and starts capable of intense application: but we read in Tacitus, that his studies and his pretended love of poetry served as a cloak to hide his real character. See History, b. iv. s. 86.

[c] Pliny the younger describes the young men of his time rushing forward into the forum without knowledge or decency. He was told, he says, by persons advanced in years, that, according to ancient usage, no young man, even of the first distinction, was allowed to appear at the bar, unless he was introduced by one of consular dignity. But, in his time, all fences of respect and decency were thrown down. Young men scorned to be introduced; they forced their way, and took possession of the forum without any kind of recommendation. At hercule ante memoriam meam (majores natu ita solent dicere), ne nobilissimis quidem adolescentibus locus erat, nisi aliquo consulari producente; tantâ veneratione pulcherrimum opus celebrabatur. Nunc refractis pudoris et reverentiæ claustris, omnia patent omnibus. Nec inducuntur, sed irrumpunt. Plin. lib. ii. epist. 14.

Section 8.

[a] This want of decorum before the tribunals of justice would appear incredible, were it not well attested by the younger Pliny. The audience, he says, was suited to the orators. Mercenary wretches were hired to applaud in the courts, where they were treated at the expence of the advocate, as openly as if they were in a banqueting-room. Sequuntur auditores actoribus similes, conducti et redempti mancipes. Convenitur in mediâ basilicâ, ubi tam palam sportulæ quam in triclinio dantur. Plin. lib, ii. epist. 14. He adds in the same epistle, LARGIUS LICINIUS first introduced this custom, merely that he might procure an audience. Primus hunc audiendi morem induxit Largius Licinius, hactenus tamen ut auditores corrogaret.

[b] This anecdote is also related by Pliny, in the following manner: Quintilian, his preceptor, told him that one day, when he attended Domitius Afer in a cause before the centumviri, a sudden and outrageous noise was heard from the adjoining court. Afer made a pause; the disturbance ceased, and he resumed the thread of his discourse. He was interrupted a second and a third time. He asked, who was the advocate that occasioned so much uproar? Being told, that Licinius was the person, he addressed himself to the court in these words: Centumvirs! all true eloquence is now at an end. Ex Quintiliano, præceptore meo, audisse memini: narrabat ille, Assectabar Domitium Afrum, cum apud centumviros diceret graviter et lentè (hoc enim illi actionis genus erat), audiit ex proximo immodicum insolitumque clamorem; admiratus reticuit; ubi silentium factum est, repetit quod abruperat; iterum clamor, iterum reticuit; et post silentium, cœpit idem tertio. Novissimè quis diceret quæsivit. Responsum est, Licinius. Tum intermissâ causâ, CENTUMVIRI, inquit, HOC ARTIFICIUM PERIIT. Lib. ii. ep. 14. Domitius Afer has been mentioned, s. xiii. note [d]. To what is there said of him may be added a fact related by Quintilian, who says that Afer, when old and superannuated, still continued at the bar, exhibiting the decay of genius, and every day diminishing that high reputation which he once possessed. Hence men said of him, he had rather decline than desist. Malle eum deficere, quam desinere. Quint. lib. xii. cap. 11.

[c] The men who applauded for hire, went from court to court to bellow forth their venal approbation. Pliny says, No longer ago than yesterday, two of my nomenclators, both about the age of seventeen, were bribed to play the part of critics. Their pay was about three denarii: that at present is the price of eloquence. Ex judicio in judicium pari mercede transitur. Heri duo nomenclatores mei (habent sane ætatem eorum, qui nuper togas sumpserunt), ternis denariis ad laudandum trahebantur. Tanti constat, ut sis disertus. Lib. ii. epist. 14.

[d] The whole account of the trade of puffing is related in the Dialogue, on the authority of Pliny, who tells us that those wretched sycophants had two nick-names; one in Greek, [Greek: Sophokleis], and the other in Latin, LAUDICÆNI; the former from sophos, the usual exclamation of applause, as in Martial: Quid tam grande sophos clamat tibi turba, togata; the Latin word importing parasites who sold their praise for a supper. Inde jam non inurbanè [Greek: Sophokleis] vocantur; iisdem nomen Latinum impositum est, LAUDICÆNI. Et tamen crescit indies fœditas utrâque linguâ notata. Lib. ii. epist. 14.

Section 10.

[a] Pliny tells us, that he employed much of his time in pleading causes before the centumviri; but he grew ashamed of the business, when he found those courts attended by a set of bold young men, and not by lawyers of any note or consequence. But still the service of his friends, and his time of life, induced him to continue his practice for some while longer, lest he should seem, by quitting it abruptly, to fly from fatigue, not from the indecorum of the place. He contrived however to appear but seldom, in order to withdraw himself by degrees. Nos tamen adhuc et utilitas amicorum, et ratio ætatis, moratur ac retinet. Veremur enim ne fortè non has indignitates reliquisse, sed laborem fugisse videamur. Sumus tamen solito rariores, quod initium est gradatim desinendi. Lib. ii. epist. 14.

Section 11.

[a] The person here distinguished from the rest of the rhetoricians, is the celebrated Quintilian, of whose elegant taste and superior judgement it were superfluous to say a word. Martial has given his character in two lines:—

It is generally supposed that he was a native of Calaguris (now Calahorra), a city in Spain, rendered famous by the martial spirit of Sertorius, who there stood a siege against Pompey. Vossius, however, thinks that he was born a Roman; and GEDOYN, the elegant translator mentioned section 6. note [a], accedes to that opinion, since Martial does not claim him as his countryman. The same writer says, that it is still uncertain when Quintilian was born, and when he died; but, after a diligent enquiry, he thinks it probable that the great critic was born towards the latter end of Tiberius; and, of course, when Domitius Afer died in the reign of Nero, A.U.C. 812, A.D. 59, that he was then two and twenty. His Institutions of an Orator were written in the latter end of Domitian, when Quintilian, as he himself says, was far advanced in years. The time of his death is no where mentioned, but it probably was under Nerva or Trajan. It must not be dissembled, that this admirable author was not exempt from the epidemic vice of the age in which he lived. He flattered Domitian, and that strain of adulation is the only blemish in his work. The love of literature may be said to have been his ruling passion; but, in his estimation, learning and genius are subordinate to honour, truth, and virtue.

Section 12.

[a] Maternus, without contradicting Messala or Secundus, gives his opinion, viz. that the decline of eloquence, however other causes might conspire, was chiefly occasioned by the ruin of a free constitution. To this he adds another observation, which seems to be founded in truth, as we find that, since the revival of letters, Spain has produced one CERVANTES; France, one MOLIERE; England, one SHAKSPEARE, and one MILTON.

Section 13.

[a] Examples of short, abrupt, and even sublime speeches out of the mouth of Barbarians, might, if the occasion required it, be produced in great abundance. Mr. Locke has observed, that the humours of a people may be learned from their usage of words. Seneca has said the same, and, in epistle cxiv. has explained himself on the subject with acute reasoning and beautiful illustration. The whole letter merits the attention of the judicious critic. The remainder of this, and the whole of the following section, serve to enforce the proposition of the speaker, viz. that Roman eloquence died with public liberty. The Supplement ends here. The original text is resumed in the next section, and proceeds unbroken to the end of the Dialogue.

Section XXXVI.

[a] When great and powerful eloquence is compared to a flame, that must be supported by fresh materials, it is evident that the sentence is a continuation, not the opening of a new argument. It has been observed, and it will not be improper to repeat, that the two former speakers (Messala and Secundus) having stated, according to their way of thinking, the causes of corrupt eloquence, Maternus, as was promised in the outset of the Dialogue, now proceeds to give another reason, and, perhaps, the strongest of all; namely, the alteration of the government from the old republican form to the absolute sway of a single ruler.

[b] The colonies, the provinces, and the nations that submitted to the Roman arms, had their patrons in the capital, whom they courted with assiduity. It was this mark of distinction that raised the ambitious citizen to the first honours in the state. To have a number of clients, as well at home as in the most important colonies, was the unremitting desire, the study, and constant labour of all who aimed at pre-eminence; insomuch that, in the time of the old republic, the men who wished to be distinguished patrons, impoverished, and often ruined their families, by their profusion and magnificence. They paid court to the common people, to the provinces, and states in alliance with Rome; and, in their turn, they received the homage of their clients. See Annals, b. iii. s. 55.

[c] We read in Quintilian, that oral testimony, and depositions signed by the witnesses, were both in use in his time. Written evidence, he observes, was easily combated; because the witness who chose to speak in the presence of a few who signed his attestation, might be guilty of a violation of truth with greater confidence; and besides, not being cited to speak, his being a volunteer in the cause was a circumstance against him, since it shewed that he acted with ill-will to the opposite party. With regard to the witness who gives his testimony in open court, the advocate has more upon his hands: he must press him with questions, and in a set speech observe upon his evidence. He must also support his own witnesses, and, therefore, must draw up two lines of battle. Maximus patronis circa testimonia sudor est. Ea dicuntur aut per tabulas, aut a præsentibus. Simplicior contra tabulas pugna. Nam et minus obstitisse videtur pudor inter paucos signatores, et pro diffidentiâ premitur absentia. Tacitâ præterea quâdam significatione refragatur his omnibus, quod nemo per tabulas dat testimonium, nisi suâ voluntate; quo ipso non esse amicum ei se, contra quem dicit, fatetur. Cum præsentibus verò ingens dimicatio est: ideoque velut duplici contra eos, proque his, acie confligitur, actionum et interrogationum. Quint. lib. v. cap. 7.

Section XXXVII.

[a] For an account of Mucianus, see section 7, note c [transcriber's note: reference does not match]; also the History, b. ii. s. 5. Suetonius relates that Vespasian, having undertaken to restore three thousand brazen plates, which had perished in the conflagration of the capital (see the Hist. of Tacitus, b. iii. s. 71), ordered a diligent search to be made for copies, and thereby furnished the government with a collection of curious and ancient records, containing the decrees of the senate, acts of the commons, and treaties of alliance, almost from the building of the city. Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, s. 8. This, with the addition of speeches and letters composed by men of eminence, was, most probably, the collection published by Mucianus. We may be sure that it contained a fund of information, and curious materials for history; but the whole is unfortunately lost.

[b] The person intended in this place must not be confounded with Lucius Crassus, the orator celebrated by Cicero in the Dialogue DE ORATORE. What is here said, relates to Marcus Crassus, who was joined in the triumvirate with Pompey and Cæsar; a man famous for his riches, his avarice, and his misfortunes. While Cæsar was engaged in Gaul, and Pompey in Spain, Crassus invaded Asia, where, in a battle with the Parthians, his whole army was cut to pieces. He himself was in danger of being taken prisoner, but he fell by the sword of the enemy. His head was cut off, and carried to Orodes, the Parthian king, who ordered liquid gold to be infused into his mouth, that he, who thirsted for gold, might be glutted with it after his death. Caput ejus recisum ad regem reportatum, ludibrio fuit, neque indigno. Aurum enim liquidum in rictum oris infusum est, ut cujus animus arserat auri cupiditate, ejus etiam mortuum et exangue corpus auro uteretur. Florus, lib. iii. cap. 11. Cicero says, that with slender talents, and a small stock of learning, he was able for some years, by his assiduity and interest, to maintain his rank in the list of eminent orators. Mediocriter a doctrinâ instructus, angustius etiam a naturâ, labore et industriâ, et quod adhibebat ad obtinendas causas curam etiam, et gratiam, in principibus patronis aliquot annos fuit. In hujus oratione sermo Latinus erat, verba non abjecta, res compositæ diligenter; nullus flos tamen, neque lumen ullum: animi magna, vocis parva contentio; omnia ferè ut similiter, atque uno modo dicerentur. Cicero, De Claris Oratoribus, s. 233.

[c] Lentulus succeeded more by his action than by real ability. With a quick and animated countenance, he was not a man of penetration; though fluent in speech, he had no command of words. His voice was sweet and melodious; his action graceful; and with those advantages he was able to conceal all other defects. Cneius autem Lentulus multo majorem opinionem dicendi actione faciebat, quam quanta in eo facultas erat; qui cum esset nec peracutus (quamquam et ex facie et ex vultu videbatur) nec abundans verbis, etsi fallebat in eo ipso; sed voce suavi et canorâ calebat in agendo, ut ea, quæ deerant, non desiderarentur. Cicero, De Claris Oratoribus, s. 234. Metellus, Lucullus, and Curio, are mentioned by Cicero in the same work. Curio was a senator of great spirit and popularity. He exerted himself with zeal and ardour for the legal constitution and the liberties of his country against the ambition of Julius Cæsar, but afterwards sold himself to that artful politician, and favoured his designs. The calamities that followed are by the best historians laid to his charge. Lucan says of him,