PLINY THE YOUNGER (CAIUS PLINIUS CÆCILIUS SECUNDUS) (62-113 A. D.) LINY THE YOUNGER was one of the best prose writers of Rome after the death of Cicero. His "Letters" on philosophical and literary subjects are especially celebrated. He was a lawyer by profession, and he edited a number of his own orations. His letter on the "Forensic Oratory of Greece and Rome" is the opinion of an expert, though the style of his "Eulogy of Trajan," by which he is judged as an orator, is not so much admired as that of his "Letters." He was born at Como in Italy, 62 A. D., from a patrician family, his father being a brother of the celebrated naturalist, Caius Plinius Secundus, called "the Elder" to distinguish him from his equally celebrated namesake. The younger Pliny was a friend of the Emperor Trajan, under whom he served as Governor of Bithynia and Pontica,-provinces from which he wrote his celebrated letter to Trajan on the treatment and conduct of the Christians. He died 113 A. D. THE ELOQUENCE OF THE BAR HAVE frequent debates with a learned and judicious person of my acquaintance, who admires nothing so much in the eloquence of the bar as conciseness. I agree with him, where the cause will admit of this manner, it may be properly enough pursued; but to insist that to omit what is material to be mentioned, or only slightly to touch upon those points which should be strongly inculcated, and urged home to the minds of the audience, is in effect to desert the cause one has undertaken. In many cases a copious manner of expression gives strength and weight to our ideas, which frequently make impressions upon the mind, as iron does upon the solid bodies, rather by repeated strokes than a single blow. In answer to this he usually has recourse to authorities; and produces Lysias among the Grecians, and Cato and the two Gracchi among our own countrymen, as instances in favor of the concise style. In return, I name Demosthenes, Eschines, Hyperides, and many others, in opposition to Lysias; while I confront Cato and the Gracchi, with Cæsar, Pollio, Cœlius, and, above all, Cicero, whose longest oration is generally esteemed the best. It is in good compositions, as in everything else that is valuable; the more there is of them, the better. You may observe in statues, basso-relievos, pictures, and the bodies of men, and even in animals and trees, that nothing is more graceful than magnitude, if it is accompanied with proportion. The same holds true in pleading; and even in books, a large volume carries something of beauty and authority in its very size. My antagonist, who is extremely dexterous at evading an argument, eludes all this, and much more which I usually urge to the same purpose, by insisting that those very persons, upon whose works I found my opinion, made considerable additions to their orations when they pub lished them. This I deny; and appeal to the harangues of numberless orators; particularly to those of Cicero for Murena and Varenus, where he seems to have given us little more than the general charge. Whence it appears that many things which he enlarged upon at the time he delivered those orations were retrenched when he gave them to the public. The same excellent orator informs us that, agreeably to the ancient custom which allowed only one counsel on a side, Cluentius had no other advocate but himself; and tells us further that he employed four whole days in defense of Cornelius,- by which it plainly appears that those orations which, when delivered at their full length, had necessarily taken up so much time at the bar, were greatly altered and abridged when he afterwards comprised them in a single volume, though I must confess, indeed, a large one. But it is objected, there is a great difference between good pleading and just composition. This opinion, I acknowledge, has some favorers, and it may be true; nevertheless, I am persuaded (though I may perhaps be mistaken), that, as it is possible a pleading may be well received by the audience, which has not merit enough to recommend it to the reader, so a good oration cannot be a bad pleading; for the oration upon paper is, in truth, the original and model of the speech that is to be pronounced. It is for this reason we find in many of the best orations extant, numberless expressions which have the air of unpremeditated discourse; and this even where we are sure they were never spoken at all: as, for instance, in the following passage from the oration against Verres,-"A certain mechanic-what's his name? Oh, I am obliged to you for helping me to it; yes, I mean Polycletus.» It cannot then be denied that the nearer approach a speaker makes to the rules of just composition, the more perfect he will be in his art; always supposing, however, that he has the necessary indulgence in point of time; for if he be abridged of that, no imputation can justly be fixed upon the advocate, though certainly a very great one is chargeable upon the judge. The sense of the laws is, I am sure, on my side, which are by no means sparing of the orator's time; it is not brevity, but an enlarged scope, a full attention to everything material, which they recommend. And how is it possible for an advocate to acquit himself of that duty, unless in the most insignificant causes, if he affects to be concise? Let me add what experience, that unerring guide, has taught me: it has frequently been my province to act both as an advocate and as a judge, as I have often assisted as an assessor, where I have ever found the judgments of mankind are to be influenced by different applications; and that the slightest circumstances often produce the most important consequences. There is so vast a variety in the dispositions and understandings of men that they seldom agree in their opinions about any one point in debate before them; or if they do, it is generally from the movement of different passions. Besides, as every man naturally favors his own discoveries, and when he hears an argument made use of which had before occurred to himself, will certainly embrace it as extremely convincing, the orator, therefore, should so adapt himself to his audience as to throw out something to every one of them, that he may receive and approve as his own peculiar thought. I remember when Regulus and I were concerned together in a cause, he said to me, You seem to think it necessary to insist upon every point; whereas, I always take aim at my adversary's throat, and there I closely press him. ('Tis true, he tenaciously holds whatever part he has once fixed upon; but the misfortune is, he is extremely apt to mistake the right place.) I answered, It might possibly happen that what he took for what he called the throat was in reality some other part. As for me, said I, who do not pretend to direct my aim with so much certainty, I attack every part, and push at every opening; in short, to use a vulgar proverb, I leave no stone unturned. As in agriculture, it is not my vineyards, or my woods alone, but my fields also that I cultivate; and (to pursue the allusion) as I do not content myself with sowing those fields with only one kind of grain, but employ several different sorts, so in my pleadings at the bar I spread at large a variety of matter like so many different seeds, in order to reap from thence whatever may happen to hit; for the disposition of your judges is as precarious and as little to be ascertained as that of soils and seasons. I remember the comic writer Eupolis mentions it in praise of that excellent orator Pericles, that "On his lips persuasion hung, And powerful reason rul'd his tongue: To charm at once and sting the heart." But could Pericles, without the richest variety of expression, and merely by force of the concise or the rapid style, or both together (for they are extremely different), have exerted that charm and that sting of which the poet here speaks? To delight and to persuade requires time and a great compass of language; and to leave a sting in the minds of his audience is an effect not to be expected from an orator who slightly pushes, but from him, and him only, who thrusts home and deep. Another comic poet, speaking of the same orator, says,— "His mighty words like Jove's own thunder roll; Greece hears and trembles to her inmost soul." But it is not the concise and the reserved, it is the copious, the majestic, and the sublime orator, who with the blaze and thunder of his eloquence hurries impetuously along, and bears down all before him. There is a just mean, I own, in everything; but he equally deviates from that true mark, who falls short of it, as he who goes beyond it; he who confines himself in too narrow a compass, as he who launches out with too great a latitude. Hence it is as common to hear our orators condemned for being too barren, as too luxuriant; for not reaching, as well as for overflowing the bounds of their subject. Both, no doubt, are equally distant from the proper medium; but with this difference, however, that in the one the fault arises from an excess, in the other from a deficiency; an error which if it be not a sign of a more correct, yet is certainly of a more exalted genius. When I say this, I would not be understood to approve that everlasting talker mentioned in Homer, but that other described in the following lines: "Frequent and soft as falls the winter snow, Not but I extremely admire him too, of whom the poet says, "Few were his words, but wonderfully strong." Yet if I were to choose, I should clearly give the preference to the style resembling winter snow, that is, to the full and diffusive; in short, to that pomp of eloquence which seems all heavenly and divine. But ('tis urged) the harangue of a more moderate length is most generally admired. It is so, I confess; but by whom? By the indolent only; and to fix the standard by the laziness and false delicacy of these would surely be the highest absurdity. Were you to consult persons of this cast, they would tell you, not only that it is best to say little, but that it is best to say nothing. Thus, my friend, I have laid before you my sentiments upon this subject, which I shall readily abandon, if I find they are not agreeable to yours. But if you should dissent from me, I beg you would communicate to me your reasons. For though I ought to yield in this case to your more enlightened judgment, yet in a point of such consequence I had rather receive my conviction from the force of argument than authority. If you should be of my opinion in this matter, a line or two from you in return, intimating your concurrence, will be sufficient to confirm me in the justness of my sentiments. On the contrary, if you think me mistaken, I beg you would give me your objections at large. Yet has it not, think you, something of the air of bribery, to ask only a short letter if you agree with me; but enjoin you the trouble of a very long one, if you are of a contrary opinion? Farewell. To Cornelius Tacitus. AULUS GELLIUS (c. 130-180 A. D.) ULUS GELLIUS, one of the most interesting prose writers of the imperial period of Rome, was born about one hundred and thirty years after Christ. He was highly educated in the literature both of Greece and Rome, and in his "Attic Nights" he discusses almost, if not quite, the whole range of topics likely to interest the educated man of his day. The fourteenth chapter of the seventh book of the "Attic Nights" gives a valuable definition of the three kinds of eloquence which were held in good repute at Rome and Athens. B THE THREE KINDS OF ELOQUENCE OTH in verse and prose there are three approved forms of speaking, called by the Greeks χαρακτηρες, and distinguished by the terms ανδρον, ισχνον, μεσον. The first we call copious, the next graceful, the third middle. The copious is that which comprehends dignity and grandeur; the graceful is that which is becoming and neat; the middle is partaker of both these. To these virtues of oratory there are an equal number of kindred defects, which fallaciously assume their dress and appearance. Thus often the tumid and the pompous pass for the "copious," the mean and the empty for the "graceful," the doubtful and ambiguous for the "middle.» M. Varro says that in the Latin tongue there are three true and pertinent examples of these forms; namely, Pacuvius of the copious, Lucilius of the graceful, Terence of the middle. But these three modes of speaking are more anciently specified by Homer in three distinct personages: Ulysses was magnificent and copious, Menelaus acute and concise, Nestor mixed and moderate. This threefold variety was also observable in three philosophers whom the Athenians sent on an embassy to Rome and the Senate, to remit the fine imposed upon them on account of the plundering Oropus. This fine was almost five hundred talents. These philosophers were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic; and being admitted into the senate, they employed C. Acilius, a senator, as their interpreter. But previously each of these, by way of displaying his abilities, had harangued in a numerous assembly. Then it is said that Rutilius and Polybius greatly admired the eloquence which was peculiar to each philosopher. They affirm that the oratory of Carneades was strong and rapid, that of Critolaus learned and polished, of Diogenes modest and temperate. But each of these forms, as I have before observed, when its ornaments are chaste and modest, is excellent; when daubed and painted it is contemptible. Complete. Beloe's translation. "Attic Nights," Book VII., chap. xiv. |