[24] Quae cum Aper dixisset, “adgnoscitisne” inquit Maternus “vim et ardorem Apri nostri? Quo torrente, quo impetu saeculum nostrum defendit! Quam copiose ac varie vexavit antiquos! Quanto non solum ingenio ac spiritu, sed etiam eruditione et arte ab ipsis mutuatus est per quae mox ipsos incesseret! Tuum tamen, Messalla, promissum immutasse non debet. Neque enim defensorem antiquorum exigimus, nec quemquam nostrum, quamquam modo laudati sumus, iis quos insectatus est Aper comparamus. Ac ne ipse quidem ita sentit, sed more vetere et a nostris philosophis saepe celebrato sumpsit sibi contra dicendi partis. Igitur exprome nobis non laudationem antiquorum (satis enim illos fama sua laudat), sed causas cur in tantum ab eloquentia eorum recesserimus, cum praesertim centum et viginti annos ab interitu Ciceronis in hunc diem effici ratio temporum collegerit.”
XXIV. As soon as Aper concluded, You see, said Maternus, the zeal and ardour of our friend: in the cause of the moderns, what a torrent of eloquence! against the ancients, what a fund of invective! With great spirit, and a vast compass of learning, he has employed against his masters the arts for which he is indebted to them. And yet all this vehemence must not deter you, Messala, from the performance of your promise. A formal defence of the ancients is by no means necessary. We do not presume to vie with that illustrious race. We have been praised by Aper, but we know our inferiority. He himself is aware of it, though, in imitation of the ancient manner , he has thought proper, for the sake of a philosophical debate, to take the wrong side of the question. In answer to his argument, we do not desire you to expatiate in praise of the ancients: their fame wants no addition. What we request is, an investigation of the causes which have produced so rapid a decline from the flourishing state of genuine eloquence. I call it rapid, since, according to Aper’s own chronology, the period from the death of Cicero does not exceed one hundred and twenty years .
[25] Tum Messalla: “sequar praescriptam a te, Materne, formam; neque enim diu contra dicendum est Apro, qui primum, ut opinor, nominis controversiam movit, tamquam parum proprie antiqui vocarentur, quos satis constat ante centum annos fuisse. Nihi autem de vocabulo pugna non est; sive illos antiquos sive maiores sive quo alio mavult nomine appellet, dum modo in confesso sit eminentiorem illorum temporum eloquentiam fuisse; ne illi quidem parti sermonis eius repugno, si comminus fatetur pluris formas dicendi etiam isdem saeculis, nedum diversis extitisse. Sed quo modo inter Atticos oratores primae Demostheni tribuuntur, proximum [autem] locum Aeschines et Hyperides et Lysias et Lycurgus obtinent, omnium autem concessu haec oratorum aetas maxime probatur, sic apud nos Cicero quidem ceteros eorundem temporum disertos antecessit, Calvus autem et Asinius et Caesar et Caelius et Brutus iure et prioribus et sequentibus anteponuntur. Nec refert quod inter se specie differunt, cum genere consentiant. Adstrictior Calvus, numerosior Asinius, splendidior Caesar, amarior Caelius, gravior Brutus, vehementior et plenior et valentior Cicero: omnes tamen eandem sanitatem eloquentiae [prae se] ferunt, ut si omnium pariter libros in manum sumpseris, scias, quamvis in diversis ingeniis, esse quandam iudicii ac voluntatis similitudinem et cognationem. Nam quod invicem se obtrectaverunt et sunt aliqua epistulis eorum inserta, ex quibus mutua malignitas detegitur, non est oratorum vitium, sed hominum. Nam et Calvum et Asinium et ipsum Ciceronem credo solitos et invidere et livere et ceteris humanae infirmitatis vitiis adfici: solum inter hos arbitror Brutum non malignitate nec invidia, sed simpliciter et ingenue iudicium animi sui detexisse. An ille Ciceroni invideret, qui mihi videtur ne Caesari quidem invidisse? Quod ad Servium Galbam et C. Laelium attinet, et si quos alios antiquiorum [Aper] agitare non destitit, non exigit defensorem, cum fatear quaedam eloquentiae eorum ut nascenti adhuc nec satis adultae defuisse.
XXV. I am willing, said Messala, to pursue the plan which you have recommended. The question, whether the men who flourished above one hundred years ago, are to be accounted ancients, has been started by my friend Aper, and, I believe, it is of the first impression. But it is a mere dispute about words. The discussion of it is of no moment, provided it be granted, whether we call them ancients, or our predecessors, or give them any other appellation, that the eloquence of those times was superior to that of the present age. When Aper tells us, that different periods of time have produced new modes of oratory, I see nothing to object; nor shall I deny, that in one and the same period the style and manners have greatly varied. But this I assume, that among the orators of Greece, Demosthenes holds the first rank, and after him Æschynes, Hyperides, Lysias, and Lycurgus, in regular succession. That age, by common consent, is allowed to be the flourishing period of Attic eloquence. In like manner, Cicero stands at the head of our Roman orators, while Calvus, Asinius, and Cæsar, Cælius and Brutus, follow him at a distance; all of them superior, not only to every former age, but to the whole race that came after them. Nor is it material that they differ in the mode, since they all agree in the kind. Calvus is close and nervous; Asinius more open and harmonious; Cæsar is distinguished by the splendour of his diction; Cælius by a caustic severity; and gravity is the characteristic of Brutus. Cicero is more luxuriant in amplification, and he has strength and vehemence. They all, however, agree in this: their eloquence is manly, sound, and vigorous. Examine their works, and you will see the energy of congenial minds, a family-likeness in their genius, however it may take a distinct colour from the specific qualities of the men. True, they detracted from each other’s merit. In their letters, which are still extant, we find some strokes of mutual hostility. But this littleness does not impeach their eloquence: their jealousy was the infirmity of human nature. Calvus, Asinius, and Cicero, might have their fits of animosity, and, no doubt, were liable to envy, malice, and other degrading passions: they were great orators, but they were men. Brutus is the only one of the set, who may be thought superior to petty contentions. He spoke his mind with freedom, and, I believe, without a tincture of malice. He did not envy Cæsar himself, and can it be imagined that he envied Cicero? As to Galba , Lælius, and others of a remote period, against whom we have heard Aper’s declamation, I need not undertake their defence, since I am willing to acknowledge, that in their style and manner we perceive those defects and blemishes which it is natural to expect, while art, as yet in its infancy, has made no advances towards perfection.
[26] Ceterum si omisso optimo illo et perfectissimo genere eloquentiae eligenda sit forma dicendi, malim hercule C. Gracchi impetum aut L. Crassi maturitatem quam calamistros Maecenatis aut tinnitus Gallionis: adeo melius est orationem vel hirta toga induere quam fucatis et meretriciis vestibus insignire. Neque enim oratorius iste, immo hercule ne virilis quidem cultus est, quo plerique temporum nostrorum actores ita utuntur, ut lascivia verborum et levitate sententiarum et licentia compositionis histrionalis modos exprimant. Quodque vix auditu fas esse debeat, laudis et gloriae et ingenii loco plerique iactant cantari saltarique commentarios suos. unde oritur illa foeda et praepostera, sed tamen frequens [sicut his clam et] exclamatio, ut oratores nostri tenere dicere, histriones diserte saltare dicantur. Equidem non negaverim Cassium Severum, quem solum Aper noster nominare ausus est, si iis comparetur, qui postea fuerunt, posse oratorem vocari, quamquam in magna parte librorum suorum plus bilis habeat quam sanguinis. primus enim contempto ordine rerum, omissa modestia ac pudore verborum, ipsis etiam quibus utitur armis incompositus et studio feriendi plerumque deiectus, non pugnat, sed rixatur. Ceterum, ut dixi, sequentibus comparatus et varietate eruditionis et lepore urbanitatis et ipsarum virium robore multum ceteros superat, quorum neminem Aper nominare et velut in aciem educere sustinuit. Ego autem exspectabam, ut incusato Asinio et Caelio et Calvo aliud nobis agmen produceret, plurisque vel certe totidem nominaret, ex quibus alium Ciceroni, alium Caesari, singulis deinde singulos opponeremus. Nunc detrectasse nominatim antiquos oratores contentus neminem sequentium laudare ausus est nisi in publicum et in commune, veritus credo, ne multos offenderet, si paucos excerpsisset. Quotus enim quisque scholasticorum non hac sua persuasione fruitur, ut se ante Ciceronem numeret, sed plane post Gabinianum? At ego non verebor nomin
are singulos, quo facilius propositis exemplis appareat, quibus gradibus fracta sit et deminuta eloquentia.”
XXVI. After all, if the best form of eloquence must be abandoned, and some, new-fangled style must grow into fashion, give me the rapidity of Gracchus , or the more solemn manner of Crassus , with all their imperfections, rather than the effeminate delicacy of Mæcenas, or the tinkling cymbal of Gallio. The most homely dress is preferable to gawdy colours and meretricious ornaments. The style in vogue at present, is an innovation, against every thing just and natural; it is not even manly. The luxuriant phrase, the inanity of tuneful periods, and the wanton levity of the whole composition, are fit for nothing but the histrionic art, as if they were written for the stage. To the disgrace of the age (however astonishing it may appear), it is the boast, the pride, the glory of our present orators, that their periods are musical enough either for the dancer’s heel , or the warbler’s throat. Hence it is, that by a frequent, but preposterous, metaphor, the orator is said to speak in melodious cadence, and the dancer to move with expression. In this view of things, even Cassius Severus (the only modern whom Aper has ventured to name), if we compare him with the race that followed, may be fairly pronounced a legitimate orator, though it must be acknowledged, that in what remains of his compositing, he is clumsy without strength, and violent without spirit. He was the first that deviated from the great masters of his art. He despised all method and regular arrangement; indelicate in his choice of words, he paid no regard to decency; eager to attack, he left himself unguarded; he brandished his weapons without skill or address; and, to speak plainly, he wrangled, but did not argue. And yet, notwithstanding these defects, he was, as I have already said, superior to all that came after him, whether we regard the variety of his learning, the urbanity of his wit, or the vigour of his mind. I expected that Aper, after naming this orator, would have drawn up the rest of his forces in regular order. He has fallen, indeed, upon Asinius, Cælius, and Calvus; but where are his champions to enter the lists with them? I imagined that he had a phalanx in reserve, and that we should have seen them man by man giving battle to Cicero, Cæsar, and the rest in succession. He has singled out some of the ancients, but has brought none of his moderns into the field. He thought it enough to give them a good character in their absence. In this, perhaps, he acted with prudence: he was afraid, if he selected a few, that the rest of the tribe would take offence. For among the rhetoricians of the present day, is there one to be found, who does not, in his own opinion, tower above Cicero, though he has the modesty to yield to Gabinianus ?
[27] “At parce” inquit Maternus “et potius exsolve promissum. Neque enim hoc colligi desideramus, disertiores esse antiquos, quod apud me quidem in confesso est, sed causas exquirimus, quas te solitum tractare [dixisti], paulo ante plane mitior et eloquentiae temporum nostrorum minus iratus, antequam te Aper offenderet maiores tuos lacessendo.” “Non sum” inquit “offensus Apri mei disputatione, nec vos offendi decebit, si quid forte auris vestras perstringat, cum sciatis hanc esse eius modi sermonum legem, iudicium animi citra damnum adfectus proferre.” “Perge” inquit Maternus “et cum de antiquis loquaris, utere antiqua libertate, a qua vel magis degeneravimus quam ab eloquentia.”
XXVII. What Aper has omitted, I intend to perform. I shall produce his moderns by name, to the end that, by placing the example before our eyes, we may be able, more distinctly, to trace the steps by which the vigour of ancient eloquence has fallen to decay. Maternus interrupted him. I wish, he said, that you would come at once to the point: we claim your promise. The superiority of the ancients is not in question. We want no proof of it. Upon that point my opinion is decided. But the causes of our rapid decline from ancient excellence remain to be unfolded. We know that you have turned your thoughts to this subject, and we expected from you a calm disquisition, had not the violent attack which Aper made upon your favourite orators, roused your spirit, and, perhaps, given you some offence. Far from it, replied Messala; he has given me no offence; nor must you, my friends, take umbrage, if at any time a word should fall from me, not quite agreeable to your way of thinking. We are engaged in a free enquiry, and you know, that, in this kind of debate, the established law allows every man to speak his mind without reserve. That is the law, replied Maternus; you may proceed in perfect security. When you speak of the ancients, speak of them with ancient freedom, which, I fear, is at a lower ebb than even the genius of those eminent men.
[28] Et Messalla “non reconditas, Materne, causas requiris, nec aut tibi ipsi aut huic Secundo vel huic Apro ignotas, etiam si mihi partis adsignatis proferendi in medium quae omnes sentimus. Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artis descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia hominum, sed desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris antiqui? Quae mala primum in urbe nata, mox per Italiam fusa, iam in provincias manant. Quamquam vestra vobis notiora sunt: ego de urbe et his propriis ac vernaculis vitiis loquar, quae natos statim excipiunt et per singulos aetatis gradus cumulantur, si prius de severitate ac disciplina maiorum circa educandos formandosque liberos pauca praedixero. Nam pridem suus cuique filius, ex casta parente natus, non in cellula emptae nutricis, sed gremio ac sinu matris educabatur, cuius praecipua laus erat tueri domum et inservire liberis. Eligebatur autem maior aliqua natu propinqua, cuius probatis spectatisque moribus omnis eiusdem familiae suboles committeretur; coram qua neque dicere fas erat quod turpe dictu, neque facere quod inhonestum factu videretur. Ac non studia modo curasque, sed remissiones etiam lususque puerorum sanctitate quadam ac verecundia temperabat. Sic Corneliam Gracchorum, sic Aureliam Caesaris, sic Atiam Augusti [matrem] praefuisse educationibus ac produxisse principes liberos accepimus. Quae disciplina ac severitas eo pertinebat, ut sincera et integra et nullis pravitatibus detorta unius cuiusque natura toto statim pectore arriperet artis honestas, et sive ad rem militarem sive ad iuris scientiam sive ad eloquentiae studium inclinasset, id solum ageret, id universum hauriret.
XXVIII. Messala resumed his discourse: The causes of the decay of eloquence are by no means difficult to be traced. They are, I believe, well known to you, Maternus, and also to Secundus, not excepting my friend Aper. It seems, however, that I am now, at your request, to unravel the business. But there is no mystery in it. We know that eloquence, with the rest of the polite arts, has lost its former lustre: and yet, it is not a dearth of men, or a decay of talents, that has produced this fatal effect. The true causes are, the dissipation of our young men, the inattention of parents, the ignorance of those who pretend to give instruction, and the total neglect of ancient discipline. The mischief began at Rome, it has over-run all Italy, and is now, with rapid strides, spreading through the provinces. The effects, however, are more visible at home, and therefore I shall confine myself to the reigning vices of the capital; vices that wither every virtue in the bud, and continue their baleful influence through every season of life. But before I enter on the subject, it will not be useless to look back to the system of education that prevailed in former times, and to the strict discipline of our ancestors, in a point of so much moment as the formation of youth. In the times to which I now refer, the son of every family was the legitimate offspring of a virtuous mother. The infant, as soon as born, was not consigned to the mean dwelling of a hireling nurse , but was reared and cherished in the bosom of a tender parent. To regulate all household affairs, and attend to her infant race, was, at that time, the glory of the female character. A matron, related to the family, and distinguished by the purity of her life, was chosen to watch the progress of the tender mind. In her presence not one indecent word was uttered; nothing was done against propriety and good manners. The hours of study and serious employment were settled by her direction; and not only so, but even the diversions of the children were conducted with modest reserve and sanctity of manners. Thus it was that Cornelia , the mother of the Gracchi, superintended the education of her illustrious issue. It was thus that Aurelia trained up Julius Cæsar; and thus Atia formed the
mind of Augustus. The consequence of this regular discipline was, that the young mind grew up in innocence, unstained by vice, unwarped by irregular passions, and, under that culture, received the seeds of science. Whatever was the peculiar bias, whether to the military art, the study of the laws, or the profession of eloquence, that engrossed the whole attention, and the youth, thus directed, embraced the entire compass of one favourite science.
Complete Works of Tacitus (Delphi Classics) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 24) Page 171