Part 14

[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:

Cum sexaginta numeret Casselius annos; Ingeniosus homo est: quando disertus erit? Lib. vii. epig. 8.

[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:--

Quintiliane, vagæ moderator summe juventæ, Gloria Romanæ, Quintiliane, togæ. Lib. ii. epig. 90.

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.