Page images
PDF
EPUB

ready been said, what is evident; and served; and why? When would sowhat does it require? Viewing it as the phistical reasoning have been resented art of persuasion, in its lowest state and punished by them? Why did their what does it require; and what does it greatest orators, on such occasions, also require, in its highest degrees? tremble; and what remark follows? In To what do we next proceed? What what manner was their eloquence proobservation is made by several critics? duced? Of Pisistratus,what is observed; Of Longinus, what is here observed; and for what purpose did he employ and of liberty, what does he remark? his ability in these arts? Of the oraWhat does he say of all other qualifica- tors who flourished between his time tions? How must this reasoning be un- and the Peleponnesian war, what is derstood; and why? What illustration observed? What is said of Pericles? of this remark is given? Of French How long did he govern Athens by his sermons and orations, what is observed? eloquence; and of it, what is remarkOf what kind, however, is their elo- ed? Hence, what surname was given quence? Where, only, is high, manly, him; and why? What was it, that and forcible eloquence, to be looked for? gave such power to his eloquence? How is this remark illustrated? Where, What is further observed of him? only, can it be employed; and from what What remarkable particular is recordis it excluded? Where may we expected of him by Suidas? Posterior to Pethat true eloquence will be best under-ricles, who arose; and what is said of stood? Hence, in tracing the rise of them? What says Cicero of the manoratory, what need we not do? In those ner of oratory that then prevailed? ages, what existed? Of the first ages, This manner is very different from what is there reason to believe; and to what? To what did the power of elowhat was this owing? What, in this quence give birth, after the days of state, had an ample field? But, what Cicero? Of these sophists, what is obfollows? Why were more of those re-served? What is remarked of Gorgias? finements of society, which make pub- Whence do we learn his style and lic speaking an object of importance, introduced in the first empires? When do we find the first remarkable appearance of eloquence as the art of persuasion? Of these, what is observed; and, therefore, what follows?

manner; and what is said of it? With what did these rhetoricians not content themselves; but what did they possess? Upon this plan, they were the first that treated of what? In the hands of such men, what may we easily believe? To How was Greece divided; and how them who opposed himself? How did were these governed? During what he explode their sophistry; and what time may we compute the flourishing did he endeavour to effect? In the period of those states to have lasted? same age, who flourished; what was Of this period, what is observed? Of he; and what did he acquire? With these republics, which was by far the what are his orations filled? In what most noted for eloquence, and for arts did he never engage; and what folof every kind? Of the Athenians, lows? What does Cicero allow ? Of the what is observed? What was the style of Gorgias of Leontium, what genius of their government; and of is observed; and also of the style of what did their legislature consist? Of Isocrates? How much time did he emthe latter, what is observed; and there, ploy in composing his panegyric; and how were affairs conducted? What of this, what is remarked? What has was there done; and why? In such a Dionysius given us upon the orations state, what would be much studied, as of Isocrates? What does he commend; the surest means of rising to influence but what does he censure? What does and power; of what kind was it; and he hold him to be? In Cicero's critical why? In so enlightened and acute a works, what is observed of him? In nation, what may we expect to find? one of his treatises, what does he tell And, accordingly, what was the re- us? Why does the manner of Isocrates sult? What, notwithstanding, was generally catch young people? But sometimes effected by ambitious dema- when they come to write or speak for gogues, and corrupt orators; and why? the world, what will they find? To When did they distinguish between what did the reputation of Isocrates genuine and spurious eloquence? And prompt Aristotle? What does he seem hence, of Demosthenes, what is ob-to have had in view? What other two

and Why they aught to

LECT. XXVI.]

QUESTIONS.

273 6 orators belong also to this period? Of and pronunciation what is observed ? Lysias, what is observed; and what is From reading his works, what characsaid 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 return? 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 ANALYSIS. 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.

2. The definition of eloquence.

A. Conviction and persuasion contrast-
ed.

E. Objections to it considered.
Degrees of Eloquence.

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. Athens.

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
Intulit agresti Latio.*-

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 naïveté, 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,
She triumph'd o'er her savage conquerors' hearts;
Taught our rough verse its numbers to refine,
And our rude style with elegance to shine.

FRANCIS

Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo
Musa loqui.*-

ARS. POET.

And hence, when we compare together the various rival productions of Greece and Rome, we shall always find this 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 alon with the greatest beauty and pomp;

* To her lov'd Greeks the muse indulgent gave,
To her lov'd Greeks with greatness to conceive;
And in sublimer tone their language raise:
Her Greeks were only covetous of praise.

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, Orator, ad M. Brutum; 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 Asiatic; 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 Cicero's days, between two great parties, with respect to eloquence, the Attici,' and the Asiani.' The former,who called themselves the Attics, were the patrons of what they conceived to be the chaste, simple, and natural style of eloquence; from which they accused Cicero 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.'

« PreviousContinue »