Book: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4

C >> Cicero >> The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4




Therefore a simple orator, provided he is elegant and not bold in the
matter of making words, and modest in his metaphors, and sparing in
his use of obsolete terms, and humble in the rest of his ornaments of
words and sentences, will perhaps indulge in a tolerably frequent use
of that kind of metaphor which is common in the ordinary conversation,
not only of city people, but even of rustics; since they too are in
the habit of saying, "that the vines sparkle with jewels," "that the
fields are thirsty," "that the corn-fields are rejoicing," "that the
crops are luxuriant." Now there is not one of these expressions which
is not somewhat bold; but the thing is either like that which you use
metaphorically; or else, if it has no name of its own, the expression
which you use appears to have been borrowed for the sake of teaching,
not of jesting. And this quiet sort of orator will use this ornament
with rather more freedom than the rest; and yet he will not do it with
as much licence as if he were practising the loftiest kind of oratory.

XXV. Therefore that unbecomingness (and what that is may be understood
from the definition we have given of what is becoming) is visible here
also, when some sublime expression is used metaphorically, and is used
in a lowly style of oration, though it might have been becoming in
a different one. But the neatness which I have spoken of, which
illuminates the arrangement of language by these lights which the
Greeks, as if they were some gestures of the speech, call [Greek:
schaemata], (and the same word is applied by them also to the
embellishments of sentences,) is employed by the refined orator (whom
some men call the Attic orator, and rightly too, if they did not mean
that he was the only one) but sparingly. For, as in the preparation of
a feast, a man while on his guard against magnificence, is desirous to
be thought not only economical but also elegant, he will choose what
is best for him to use. For there are many kinds of economy suited to
this very orator of whom I am speaking; for the ornaments which I have
previously been mentioning are to be avoided by this acute orator,--I
mean the comparing like with like, and the similarly sounding and
equally measured ends of sentences, and graces hunted out as it were
by the alteration of a letter; so that it may not be visible that
neatness has been especially aimed at, and so that the orator may not
be detected in having been hunting for means of pleasing the ears of
his audience.

Again, if repetitions of the same expressions require a sort of
vehemence and loudness of voice, they will then be unsuited to the
simple style of oratory. The orator may use other embellishments
promiscuously; only let him relax and separate the connexion of the
words, and use as ordinary expressions as possible, and as gentle
metaphors. Let him even avail himself of those lights of sentiments,
as long as they are not too brilliant. He will not make the republic
speak; nor will he raise the dead from the shades below; nor will he
collect together a number of particulars in one heap, and so fold them
in one embrace. Such deeds belong to more vigorous beings, nor are
they to be expected or required from this man of whom we are giving a
sketch; for he will be too moderate not only in his voice, but also
in his style. But there are many embellishments which will suit his
simple style, although he will use even them in a strict manner; for
that is his character.

He will have besides this, action, not tragic, nor suited to the
stage, but he will move his body in a moderate degree, trusting a
great deal to his countenance; not in such a way as people call making
faces but in a manner sufficient to show in a gentlemanlike manner in
what sense he means what he is saying to be understood.

XXVI. Now in this kind of speech sallies of wit are admissible, and
they carry perhaps only too much weight in an oration. Of them there
are two kinds,--facetiousness and raillery,--and the orator will
employ both; but he will use the one in relating anything neatly, and
the other in darting ridicule on his adversaries. And of this latter
kind there are more descriptions than one; however, it is a different
thing that we are discussing now. Nevertheless we may give this
warning,--that the orator ought to use ridicule in such a way as
neither to indulge in it too often, that it may not seem like
buffoonery; nor in a covertly obscure manner, that it may not seem
like the wit of a comedian; nor in a petulant manner, lest it should
seem spiteful; nor should he ridicule calamity, lest that should seem
inhuman; nor crime, lest laughter should usurp the place which hatred
ought to occupy; nor should he employ this weapon when unsuitable to
his own character, or to that of the judges, or to the time; for all
such conduct would come under the head of unbecoming.

The orator must also avoid using jests ready prepared, such as do not
arise out of the occasion, but are brought from home; for they are
usually frigid. And he must spare friendships and dignities. He will
avoid such insults as are not to be healed; he will only aim at his
adversaries, and not even always at them, nor at all of them, nor in
every manner. And with these exceptions, he will employ his sallies of
wit and his facetiousness in such a manner as I have never found any
one of those men do who consider themselves Attic speakers, though
there is nothing more Attic than that practice.

This is the sketch which I conceive to be that of a plain orator, but
still of a great one, and one of a genius very kindred to the Attic;
since whatever is witty or pleasant in a speech is peculiar to the
Attics. Not, however, that all of them are facetious: Lysias is said
to be tolerably so, and Hyperides; Demades is so above all others.
Demosthenes is considered less so, though nothing appears to me to be
more well-bred than he is; but he was not so much given to raillery as
to facetiousness. And the former is the quality of a more impetuous
disposition; the latter betokens a more refined art.

XXVII. There is another style more fertile, and somewhat more
forcible than this simple style of which we have been speaking; but
nevertheless tamer than the highest class of oratory, of which I shall
speak immediately. In this kind there is but little vigour, but there
is the greatest possible quantity of sweetness; for it is fuller
than the plain style, but more plain than that other which is highly
ornamented and copious.

Every kind of ornament in speaking is suitable to this style; and in
this kind of oratory there is a great deal of sweetness. It is a style
in which many men among the Greeks have been eminent; but Demetrius
Phalereus, in my opinion, has surpassed all the rest; and while his
oratory proceeds in calm and tranquil flow, it receives brilliancy
from numerous metaphors and borrowed expressions, like stars.

I call them metaphors, as I often do, which, on account of their
similarity to some other idea, are introduced into a speech for
the sake of sweetness, or to supply a deficiency in a language. By
borrowed expressions I mean those in which, for the proper word,
another is substituted which has the same sense, and which is derived
from some subsequent fact. And though this too is a metaphorical
usage; still Ennius employed it in one manner when he said, "You are
orphaning the citadel and the city;" and he would have used it in a
different manner if he had used the word "citadel," meaning "country."
Again, when he says that "horrid Africa trembles with a terrible
tumult," he uses "Africa" for "Africans." The rhetoricians call this
"hypallage," because one word as it were is substituted for another.
The grammarians call it "metonymia," because names are transferred.
But Aristotle classes them all under metaphor, and so he does the
misuse of terms which they call [Greek: katachraesis]. As when we call
a mind "minute" instead of "little," and misuse words which are near
to others in sense; if there is any necessity for so doing, or any
pleasure, or any particular becomingness in doing so. When many
metaphors succeed one another uninterruptedly the sort of oration
becomes entirely changed. Therefore the Greeks call it [Greek:
allaegoria], rightly as to name; but as to its class he speaks
more accurately who calls all such usages metaphors. Phalereus is
particularly fond of these usages, and they are very agreeable; and
although there is a great deal of metaphor in his speaking, yet there
is no one who makes a more frequent use of the metonymia.

The same kind of oratory, (I am speaking of the moderate and temperate
kind), admits of all sorts of figures of expressions, and of many also
of ideas. Discussions of wide application and extensive learning
are explained in it, and common topics are treated without any
impetuosity. In a word, orators of this class usually come from the
schools of philosophers, and unless the more vigorous orator, whom I
am going to speak of presently, is at hand to be compared with them,
the one whom I am now describing will be approved of. For there is
a remarkable and flowery and highly-coloured and polished style of
oratory, in which every possible elegance of expression and idea is
connected together. And it is from the fountain of the sophist that
all this has flowed into the forum; but still, being despised by the
subtle arguers, and rejected by dignified speakers, it has taken its
place in the moderate kind of oratory of which I am speaking.

XXVIII. The third kind of orator is the sublime, copious, dignified,
ornate speaker, in whom there is the greatest amount of grace. For he
it is, out of admiration for whose ornamented style and copiousness of
language nations have allowed eloquence to obtain so much influence
in states; but it was only this eloquence, which is borne along in an
impetuous course, and with a mighty noise, which all men looked up
to, and admired, and had no idea that they themselves could possibly
attain to. It belongs to this eloquence to deal with men's minds, and
to influence them in every imaginable way. This is the style which
sometimes forces its way into and sometimes steals into the senses;
which implants new opinions in men, and eradicates others which have
been long established. But there is a vast difference between this
kind of orator and the preceding ones. A man who has laboured at the
subtle and acute style, in order to be able to speak cunningly and
cleverly, and who has had no higher aim, if he has entirely attained
his object, is a great orator, if not a very great one; he is far from
standing on slippery ground, and if he once gets a firm footing, is
in no danger of falling. But the middle kind of orator, whom I have
called moderate and temperate, if he has only arranged all his own
forces to his satisfaction, will have no fear of any doubtful or
uncertain chances of oratory; and even if at any time he should not be
completely successful, which may often be the case, still he will be
in no great danger, for he cannot fall far. But this orator of ours,
whom we consider the first of orators, dignified, vehement, and
earnest, if this is the only thing for which he appears born, or if
this is the only kind of oratory to which he applies himself, and if
he does not combine his copiousness of diction with those other two
kinds of oratory, is very much to be despised. For the one who speaks
simply, inasmuch as he speaks with shrewdness and sense, is a wise
man; the one who employs the middle style is agreeable; but this
most copious speaker, if he is nothing else, appears scarcely in his
senses. For a man who can say nothing with calmness, nothing with
gentleness; who seems ignorant of all arrangement and definition and
distinctness, and regardless of wit, especially when some of his
causes require to be treated in that matter entirely, and others in a
great degree; if he does not prepare the ears of his hearers before he
begins to work up the case in an inflammatory style, he seems like a
madman among people in their senses, or like a drunken man among sober
men.

XXIX. We have then now, O Brutus, the orator whom we are looking for;
but only in our mind's eye. For if I had had hold of him in my hand,
even he himself, with all his eloquence, should never have persuaded
me to let him go. But, in truth, that eloquent man whom Antonius never
saw is now discovered. Who then is he? I will define him in a few
words, and then describe him at length. For he is an eloquent man who
can speak of low things acutely, and of great things with dignity, and
of moderate things with temper.

Such a man you will say there never was. Perhaps there never was; for
I am only discussing what I wish to see, and not what I have seen.
And I come back to that sketch and idea of Plato's which I mentioned
before; and although we do not see it, yet we can comprehend it in
our mind. For I am not looking for an eloquent man, or for any other
mortal or transitory thing; but for that particular quality which
whoever is master of is an eloquent man; and that is nothing but
abstract eloquence, which we are not able to discern with any eyes
except those of the mind. He then will be an eloquent man, (to repeat
my former definition,) who can speak of small things in a lowly
manner, of moderate things in a temperate manner, and of great things
with dignity. The whole of the cause in which I spoke for Caecina
related to the language or an interdict: we explained some very
involved matters by definitions; we praised the civil law; we
distinguished between words of doubtful meaning. In a discussion on
the Manilian law it was requisite to praise Pompey; and accordingly,
in a temperate speech, we arrived at a copiousness of ornament. The
whole question, of the rights of the people was contained in the
cause of Rabinius; and accordingly we indulged in every conceivable
amplification. But these styles require at times to be regulated and
restrained. What kind of argument is there which is not found in my
five books of impeachment of Verres? or in my speech for Avitus? or in
that for Cornelius? or in the other numerous speeches in defence of
different men? I would give instances, if I did not believe them to
be well known, and that those who wanted them could select them for
themselves; for there is no effort of an orator of any kind, of which
there is not in our speeches, if not a perfect example, at least some
attempt at and sketch of. If we cannot arrive at perfection, at all
events we see what is becoming.

Nor are we at present speaking of ourselves, but of eloquence, in
which we are so far from having a high opinion of our own proficiency,
that we are so hard to please and exacting, that even Demosthenes
himself does not satisfy us. For he, although he is eminent above all
men in every description of oratory, still he does not always satisfy
my ears; so greedy and capacious are they, and so unceasingly desiring
something vast and infinite.

XXX. But still, since you became thoroughly well acquainted with this
orator, in company with his devoted admirer Pammenes, when you were
at Athens, and as you never put him down out of your hands, though,
nevertheless, you are often reading my works, you see forsooth that he
accomplishes many things, and that we attempt many things;--that he
has the power, we the will to speak in whatever manner the cause
requires. But he was a great man, for he came after great men, and he
had consummate orators for his contemporaries. We should have done a
great deal if we had been able to arrive at the goal which we proposed
to ourselves in a city in which, as Antonius says, no eloquent man had
been ever heard before. But, if Crassus did not appear to Antonius to
be eloquent, or if he did not think he was so himself, certainly Cotta
would never have seemed so to him, nor Sulpicius, nor Hortensius.
For Cotta never said anything sublime, Sulpicius never said anything
gently, Hortensius seldom spoke with dignity. Those former men were
much more suited to every style; I mean Crassus and Antonius. We feel,
therefore, that the ears of the city were not much accustomed to this
varied kind of eloquence, and to an oratory so equally divided
among all sorts of styles. And we, such as we were, and however
insignificant were our attempts, were the first people to turn the
exceeding fondness of the people for listening to this kind of
eloquence.

What an outcry was there when, as quite a young man I uttered that
sentence about the punishment of parricides! and even a long time
afterwards we found that it had scarcely entirely worn off. "For what
is so common, as breath to living people, the earth to the dead, the
sea to people tossed about by the waves, or the shore to shipwrecked
mariners?--they live while they are let live, in such a way as to be
unable to breathe the air of heaven; they die so that their bones do
not touch the earth; they are tossed about by the waves without ever
being washed by them; and at last they are cast up by them in such a
manner, that when dead they are not allowed a resting-place even on
the rocks." And so on. For all this is the language of a young man,
extolled not on account of any real merit or maturity of judgment, as
for the hopes and expectations which he gave grounds for. From the
same turn of mind came that more polished invective,--"the wife of
her son-in-law; the mother-in-law of her son, the invader of her
daughter's bed." Not, however, that this ardour was always visible
in us, so as to make us say everything in this manner. For that very
juvenile exuberance of speech in defence of Roscius has many weak
passages in it, and some merry ones, such as also occur in the speech
for Avitus, for Cornelius, and many others. For no orator has ever,
even in the Greek language, written as many speeches as I have. And my
speeches have the variety which I so much approve of.

XXXI. Should I permit Homer, and Ennius, and the rest of the poets,
and especially the tragic poets, to forbear displaying the same
vehemence on every occasion, and constantly to change their language,
and sometimes even to come near to the ordinary language of daily
conversation; and never myself descend from that fierce style of
vehement expression? But why do I cite poets of godlike genius? We
have seen actors, than whom nothing could be more admirable of their
kind, who have not only given great satisfaction in the representation
of the most different characters, and also in their own, but we have
seen even a comedian gain great applause in tragedies, and a tragedian
in comedies;--and shall not I attempt the same thing? When I say I, O
Brutus, I mean you also; for, as for myself, all that can be done has
been done. But will you plead every cause in the same manner, or are
there some kind of causes which you will reject? or will you employ
the same uninterrupted vehemence in the same causes without any
alteration?

Demosthenes, indeed, whose bust of brass I lately saw between the
images of yourself and your ancestors, (a proof, I suppose, of your
fondness for him,) when I was with you at your Tusculan villa, does
not yield at all to Lysias in acuteness, nor in shrewdness and
cleverness to Hyperides, nor in gentleness or brilliancy of language
to Aeschines. Many of his orations are very closely argued, as
that against Leptines; many are wholly dignified, as some of the
Philippics; many are of varied style, as those against Aeschines,
the one about the false embassy, and the one also, against the same
Aeschines in the cause of Ctesiphon. As often as he pleases he adopts
the middle style, and, departing from his dignified tone, he indulges
in that lower one. But when he raises the greatest outcry on the part
of his hearers, and makes the greatest impression by his speech, is
when he employs the topics of dignity.

However, let us leave Demosthenes for awhile, since it is a class that
we are inquiring about, and not an individual. Let us rather explain
the effect and nature of the thing; that is, of Eloquence. And let
us recollect what we have just said, that we are not going to say
anything for the sake of giving rules; but that we are going to speak
so as to be thought people expressing an opinion rather than teaching.
Though we often do advance further, because we see that you are not
the only person who will read this; you who, in fact, know all this
much better than we ourselves who appear to be teaching you; but it is
quite certain that this book will be extensively known, if not from
the recommendation which its being my work will give it, at all
events, because of its appearing under the sanction of your name, by
being dedicated to you.


XXXII. I think, then, that it belongs to a perfectly eloquent man, not
only to have the ability, which is his peculiar province, of speaking
copiously and with the assertion of large principles, but also to
possess its neighbouring and contiguous science of dialectics:
although an oration appears one thing and a discussion another; nor is
talking the same thing as speaking; though each belongs to discussing.
Let then the system of discussing and talking belong to the logicians;
but let the province of the orators be to speak and to embellish their
speeches. Zeno, that great man, who founded the school of the Stoics,
was in the habit of showing with his hand what was the difference
between these arts; for when he had compressed his fingers and made a
fist, he said that dialectics were like that; but when he had opened
his fingers and expanded his hand, he said that eloquence was like
his open palm. And even before him Aristotle, in the beginning of
his Rhetoric, said, that the art of eloquence in one portion of it
corresponded to dialectics; so that they differ from one another in
this, that the system of speaking is more wide, that of talking more
contracted. I wish, then, that this consummate orator should be
acquainted with the entire system of talking, as far as it can be
applied to speaking; and that (as indeed you, who have a thorough
acquaintance with these arts, are well aware) has a twofold method of
teaching. For Aristotle himself has given many rules for arguing:
and those who followed him, and who are called dialecticians, have
delivered many very difficult rules. Therefore I think, that the man
who is tempted by the glory of eloquence, is not utterly ignorant
of those things; but that he has been brought up either in that old
school, or in the school of Chrysippus. Let him first acquaint himself
with the meaning and nature and classes of words, both single and
combined; then let him learn in how many ways each word is used; then
how it is decided, whether a thing is false or true; then what
results from each proposition; then to what argument each result is
a consequence, and to what it is contrary; and, as many things are
stated in an ambiguous manner, he must also learn how each of them
ought to be distinguished and explained. This is what must be acquired
by an orator; for those things are constantly occurring; but, because
they are in their own nature less attractive, it is desirable to
employ some brilliancy of eloquence in explaining them.

XXXIII. And since in all things which are taught in any regular method
and system, it is first of all necessary to settle what each thing is,
(unless it is agreed by those who are discussing the point, what the
thing really is which is being discussed; nor otherwise is it possible
to discuss anything properly, or ever to get to the end of the
discussion,) we must often have recourse to words to explain our
meaning about each thing; and we must facilitate the understanding of
an involved and obscure matter by definition; since definition is a
kind of speech which points out in the most concise possible manner
what that is which is the subject of discussion. Then, as you know,
when the genus of each thing has been explained, we must consider what
are the figures or divisions of that genus, so that our whole speech
may be arranged with reference to them.

This faculty, then, will exist in the eloquent man whom we are
endeavouring to describe, so that he shall be able to define a thing;
and shall do it in the same close and narrow terms which are commonly
employed in those very learned discussions; but he shall be more
explanatory and more copious, and he shall adopt his definition more
to the ordinary judgment and usual intelligence of mankind. And again,
when circumstances require it, he shall divide and arrange the whole
genus into certain species, so that none shall be omitted and none
be superfluous. But when he shall do this, or how, is nothing to
the present question; since, as I have said before, I am here only
expressing an opinion, not giving a lesson.

Nor, indeed, must he be learned only in dialectics, but he must have
all the topics of philosophy familiar to him and at his fingers' ends.
For nothing respecting religion, or death, or affection, or love for
one's country, or good fortune, or bad fortune, or virtues, or vices,
or duty, or pain, or pleasure, or the different motions of the mind,
or mistakes, all which topics frequently occur in causes, but are
treated usually in a very meagre manner, can be discussed and
explained in a dignified and lofty and copious manner without that
knowledge which I have mentioned.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.