ANALYSIS. orators belong also to this period? Of and pronunciation what is observed ? Lysias, what is observed; and what is From reading his works, what charac said of Isæus? What circumstances, ter would one naturally form of him, in the case of Demosthenes, are very and why? On what does he sometimes encouraging to those who study elo- border? To what is this want of smoothquence; and why? Despising the af-ness and grace to be attributed? But, by fected and florid manner of that age, what are these defects more than comto what did he retur? Of the field pensated? What was the consequence that his capital orations opened to him of the loss of liberty in Greece? Of Dewhat is observed? What is the subject metrius Phalerius what is observed? of them? In what manner does he prosecute this end? How does he treat his contemporary orators, who were in Philip's interest? What does he do besides prompting to rigorous conduct? What is the strain of these orations? In what manner do they proceed? Of his figures, what is observed? What is it that forms his character? How is this illustrated? In contrast with whom does Demosthenes appear to great advantage; and of the latter, what is observed? Describe, particularly, the manner of the two orators, in contrast with each other? How is the style of Demosthenes described? Of his action, Eloquence. 1. Introductory remarks. A. Conviction and persuasion contrast- B. Objections to it considered. 1. To please only. 2. To please, to inform, to instruct, &c. 3. To interest, to agitate, &c. A. The offspring of passion. 4. Eloquence to be found in the regions of freedom only. 5. Its origin. a. Pisistratus, Pericles, Isocrates, &c. b. Demosthenes. LECTURE XXVI. HISTORY OF ELOQUENCE CONTINUED.-ROMAN ELOQUENCE.-CICERO.-MODERN ELOQUENCE. HAVING treated of the rise of eloquence, and of its state among the Greeks, we now proceed to consider its progress among the Romans, where we shall find one model, at least, of eloquence, in its most splendid and illustrious form. The Romans were long a martial nation, altogether rude, and unskilled in arts of any kind. Arts were of a late introduction among them; they were not known till after the conquest of Greece; and the Romans always acknowledge the Grecians as their masters in every part of learning. Grecia capta ferum victorum cepit, et artes Hor. Epist. ad Aug. As the Romans derived their eloquence, poetry, and learning, from the Greeks, so they must be confessed to be far inferior to them in genius for all these accomplishments. They were a more grave and magnificent, but a less acute and sprightly people. They had neither the vivacity nor the sensibility of the Greeks, their passions were not so easily moved, nor their conceptions so lively; in comparison of them, they were a phlegmatic nation. Their language resembled their character; it was regular, firm, and stately; but wanted that simple and expressive naiveté, and, in particular, that flexibility to suit every different mode and species of composition, for which the Greek tongue is distinguished above that of every other country. *When conquer'd Greece brought in her captive arts, FRANCIS Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo ARS. POET. And hence, when we compare together the various rival productions of Greece and Rome, we shall always find th's distinction obtain, that in the Greek productions there is more native genius; in the Roman, more regularity and art What the Greeks invented, the Romans polished; the one was the original, rough sometimes, and incorrect; the other, a finished copy. As the Roman government, during the republic, was of the popular kind, there is no doubt but that, in the hands of the leading men, public speaking became early an engine of government, and was employed for gaining distinction and power. But in the rude unpolished times of the state, their speaking was hardly of that sort that could be called eloquence. Though Cicero, in his Treatise, 'De Claris Oratoribus,' endeavours to give some reputation to the elder Cato, and those who were his contemporaries, yet he acknowledges it to have been 'Asperum et horridum genus dicendi,' a rude and harsh strain of speech. It was not till a short time preceding Cicero's age, that the Roman orators rose into any note. Crassus and Antonius, two of the speakers in the dialogue De Oratore, appear to have been the most eminent, whose different manners Cicero describes with great beauty in that dialogue, and in his other rhetorical works. But as none of their productions are extant, nor any of Hortensius's, who was Cicero's contemporary and rival at the bar, it is needless to transscribe from Cicero's writings the account which he gives of those great men, and of the character of their eloquence.t The object in this period, most worthy to draw our attention, is Cicero himself; whose name alone suggests every thing that is splendid in oratory. With the history of his life, and with his character as a man and a politician, we have not at present any direct concern. We consider him only as an eloquent speaker; and in this view, it is our business to remark both his virtues and his defects, if he has any. His virtues are, beyond controversy, eminently great. In all his orations there is high art. He begins, generally, with a regular exordium; and with much preparation and insinuation prepossesses the hearers, and studies to gain their affections. His method is clear,and his arguments are arranged with great propriety. His method is indeed more clear than that of Demosthenes; and this is one advantage which he has over him. We find every thing in its proper place; he never attempts to move, till he has endeavoured to convince: and in moving, especially the softer passions, he is very successful. No man knew the power and force of words better than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and pomp; *To her lov'd Greeks the muse indulgent gave, FRANCIS + Such as are desirous of particular information on this head, had better have recourse to the original, by reading Cicero's three books de Oratore, and his other two treatises, entitled, the one Brutus, Sive de Claris Oratoribus; the other, Crator, ad M. utum; which, on several accounts, well deserve perusal and, in the structure of his sentences, is curious and exact to the highest degree. He is always full and flowing, never abrupt. He is a great amplifier of every subject; magnificent, and in his sentiments highly moral. His manner is on the whole diffuse, yet it is often happily varied, and suited to the subject. In his four orations, for instance, against Catiline, the tone and style of each of them, particularly the first and last, is very different, and accommodated with a great deal of judgment to the occasion, and the situation in which they were spoken. When a great public object roused his mind, and demanded indignation and force, he departs considerably from that loose and declamatory manner to which he leans at other times, and becomes exceedingly cogent and vehement. This is the case in his orations against Anthony, and in those two against Verres and Catiline. Together with those high qualities which Cicero possesses, he is not exempt from certain defects, of which it is necessary to take notice. For the Ciceronian eloquence is a pattern so dazzling by its beauties, that, if not examined with accuracy and judgment, it is apt to betray the unwary into a faulty imitation; and I am of opinion, that it has sometimes produced this effect. In most of his orations, especially those composed in the earlier part of his life, there is too much art; even carried the length of ostentation. There is too visible a parade of eloquence. He seems often to aim at obtaining admiration, rather than at operating conviction, by what he says. Hence, on some occasions, he is showy rather than solid; and diffuse, where he ought to have been pressing. His sentences are, at all times, round and sonorous; they cannot be accused of monotony, for they possess variety of cadence; but, from too great a study of magnificence, he is sometimes deficient in strength. On all occasions, where there is the least room for it, he is full of himself. His great actions, and the real services which he had performed to his country, apologized for this in part; ancient manners, too, imposed fewer restraints from the side of decorum; but, even after these allowances made, Cicero's ostentation of himself cannot be wholly palliated; and his orations, indeed all his works, leave on our minds the impression of a good man, but withal, of a vain man. The defects which we have now taken notice of in Cicero's eloquence, were not unobserved by his own contemporaries. This we learn from Quintilian, and from the author of the dialogue, ' de Causis Corruptæ Eloquentiæ.' Brutus, we are informed, called him, 'fractum et elumbem,' broken and enervated. 'Suorum temporum homines,' says Quintilian, 'incessere audebant eum ut tumidiorem et Asianum, et redundantem, et in repetitionibus nimium, et in salibus aliquando frigidum, et in compositione fractum et exsultantem, et penè viro molliorem.* These censures were undoubtedly carried too * His contemporaries ventured to reproach him as swelling, redundant, and Asia. u; too frequent in repetitions; in his attempts towards wit sometimes cold; and in the strain of his composition, feeble, desultory, and more effeminate than became a man.' far; and savour of malignity and personal enmity. They saw his defects, but they aggravated them; and the source of these aggravations can be traced to the difference which prevailed in Rome, in Ci cero's days, between two great parties, with respect to eloquence, the Attici,' and the Asiani.' The former,who called themselve the Attics, were the patrons of what they conceived to be the chast simple, and natural style of eloquence; from which they accused Ci cero as having departed, and as leaning to the florid Asiatic manner In several of his rhetorical works, particularly in his 'Orator ad Brutum,' Cicero, in his turn, endeavours to expose this sect, as substituting a frigid and jejune manner, in place of the true Attic eloquence; and contends, that his own composition was formed upon the real Attic style. In the 10th chapter of the last book of Quintilian's Institutions, a full account is given of the disputes between these two parties; and of the Rhodian, or middle manner, between the Attics and the Asiatics. Quintilian himself declares on Cicero's side; and, whether it be called Attic or Asiatic, prefers the full, the copious, and the amplifying style. He concludes with this very just observation: Plures sunt eloquentiæ facies; sed stultissimum est quærere, ad quam recturus se sit orator; cum omnis species, quæ modo recta est, habeat usum. Utetur enim, ut res exiget, omnibus; nec pro causâ modo, sed pro partibus causæ.'* On the subject of comparing Cicero and Demosthenes, much has been said by critical writers. The different manners of these two princes of eloquence, and the distinguishing characters of each, are so strongly marked in their writings, that the comparison is, in many respects, obvious and easy. The character of Demosthenes is vigour and austerity; that of Cicero is gentleness and insinuation. In the one, you find more manliness; in the other, more ornament. The one is more harsh, but more spirited and cogent; the other more agreeable, but withal looser and weaker. To account for this difference without any prejudice to Cicero, it has been said, that we must look to the nature of their different auditories; that the refined Athenians followed with ease the concise and convincing eloquence of Demosthenes: but that a manner more popular, more flowery and declamatory, was requisite in speaking to the Romans, a people less acute, and less acquainted with the arts of speech. But this is not satisfactory. For we must observe, that the Greek orator spoke much oftener before a mixed multitude, than the Roman. Almost all the public business of Athens was transacted in popular assemblies. The common people were his hearers, and his judges. Whereas, Cicero generally addressed himself to the Patres Conscripti,' or in criminal trials to the Prætor, and the select judges; and it cannot be imagined, that the persons of highest rank, and best education in Rome, required a * Eloquence admits of many different forms and nothing can be more foolish than to inquire, by which of them an orator is to regulate his composition; since every form, which is in itself just, has its own place and use. The orator, according as circumstances require, will employ them all; suiting them not only to the cause or subject of which he treats, but to the different parts of that subject.' more diffuse manner of pleading than the common citizens of Athens, in order to make them understand the cause, or relish the speaker. Perhaps we shall come nearer the truth, by observing, that to unite all the qualities, without the least exception, that form a perfect orator, and to excel equally in each of those qualities, is not to be expected from the limited powers of human ge nius. The highest degree of strength is, I suspect, never found united with the highest degree of smoothness and ornament; equal attention to both are incompatible; and the genius that carries ornament to its utmost length, is not of such a kind as can excel as much in vigour. For there plainly lies the characteristical difference between these two celebrated orators. It is a disadvantage to Demosthenes, that besides his conciseness, which sometimes produces obscurity, the language in which he writes is less familiar to most of us than the Latin, and that we are less acquainted with the Greek antiquities than we are with the Roman. We read Cicero with more ease, and of course with more pleasure. Independent of this circumstance, too, he is, no doubt, in himself, a more agreeable writer than the other. But notwithstanding this advantage, I am of opinion, that were the state in danger, or some great national interest at stake, which drew the serious attention of the public, an oration in the spirit and strain of Demosthenes would have more weight, and produce greater effects,than one in the Ciceronian manner. Were Demosthenes' Philippics spoken in a British assembly, in a similar conjuncture of affairs, they would convince and persuade at this day. The rapid style, the vehement reasoning, the disdain, anger, boldness, freedom, which perpetually animate them, would render their success infallible over any modern assembly. I question whether the same can be said of Cicero's orations; whose eloquence, however beautiful, and however well suited to the Roman taşte, yet borders oftener on declamation, and is more remote from the manner in which we now expect to hear real business and causes of importance treated.* In comparing Demosthenes and Cicero, most of the French critics are disposed to give the preference to the latter. P. Rapin the Jesuit, in the parallels which he has drawn between some of the most eminent Greek and Roman writers, uniformly decides in favour of the Roman. For the preference which he gives to Cicero, he assigns, and lays stress on, one reason of a pretty extraordinary nature; viz. that Demosthenes could not possibly have so complete an insight as Cicero into the manners and passions of men: Why? Because he had not the advantage of perusing Aristotle's Treatise of Rhetoric, wherein, says our critic, he has fully laid open that mystery; and, to support this weighty argument, he enters into a controversy with A. Gellius, in order to prove that Aristotle's Rhetoric was not published till after Demosthenes had In this judgment I concur with Mr. David Hume, in his Essay upon Eloquence He gives it as his opinion, that of all human productions, the orations of Demosthenes present to us the models which approach the nearest to perfection. |