Book: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4

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




XLV. However, the Greeks must judge of that matter for themselves. We
are not allowed to use our words in that manner, not even if we wish
to; and this is shown even by those unpolished speeches of Cato. It is
shown by all the poets except those who sometimes had recourse to a
hiatus in order to finish their verse; as Naevius--

"Vos, qui accolitis Istrum fluvium, atque Algidam."

And again--

"Quam nunquam vobis Graii atque Barbari."

But Ennius does so only once--

"Scipio invicte."

And we too have written,--

"Hinc motu radiantis Etesiae in vada ponti."

For our countrymen would not have endured the frequent use of such a
liberty, though the Greeks even praise it. But why should I talk about
vowels? even without counting vowels, they often used contractions for
the sake of brevity, so as to say--


Multi' modis for imdtis modis.
Vas' argenteis for vasis argenteis.
Palmi et crinibus for palmis et crinibus.
Tecti' fractis for tectis fractis.


And what would be a greater liberty than to contract even men's names,
so as to make them more suitable to verse? For as they contracted
_duellum_ into _bellum_, and _duis_ into _bis_, so they called
_Duellius_ (the man I mean who defeated the Carthaginians in a naval
action) _Bellius_, though his ancestors were always called _Duellii_.
Moreover, they often contract words, not in obedience to any
particular usage, but only to please the ear. For how was it that
Axilla was made Ala, except by the flight of the larger letter? and so
the elegant usage of Latin conversation takes this letter _x_ out of
_maxilla_, and _taxilla_, and _vexillum_, and _paxillum_.

They also joined words by uniting them at their pleasure; so as to
say--_sodes_ for _si audes_, _sis_ for _si vis_. And in this word
_capsis_ there are no less than three[62] words. So _ain_ for _aisne,
nequire_ for _non quire, malle_ for _magis velle, nolle_ for _son
velle_. And again, we often say _dein_ for _deinde_, and _exin_ for
_exinde_. Well, need I give any more instances? Cannot we see easily
from whence it arises that we say _cum illis_, but we do not say _cum
nobis_, but _nobiscum_? because if it were said in the other way, the
letters would clash in a discordant manner; as they would have clashed
a minute ago if I had not put _autem_ between them. This is the origin
of our saying _mecum_ and _tecum_, not _cum me_, and _cum te_, so that
they too might be like _nobiscum_ and _vobiscum_.

XLVI. And some men find fault with all this; men who are rather late
in mending antiquity; for they wish us, instead of saying _Deum atque
hominum fidem_, to say _Deorum_. Very likely it may be right, but were
our ancestors ignorant of all this, or was it usage that gave them
this liberty? Therefore the same poet who had used these uncommon
contractions--

"Patris mei mecum factum pudet," for meorum factorum,

and,

"Texitur: exitium examen rapit," for exitiorum,

does not say "_liberum_" as many of us do say in such an expression as
_cupidos liberum_, or in _liberum loco_, but, as these men approve,

"Neque tuum unquam in gremium extollas liberorum ex te genus."

And again he says,--

"Namque aesculapi liberorum...."

And another of these poets says in his Chryses, not only

"Cives, antiqui amici majorum meum,"

which was common enough; but he says, with a much more unmusical
sound,--

"Consilium, augurium, atque extum interpretes."

And again he goes on--

"Postquam prodigium horriferum, putentfum pavos,"

which are not at all usual contractions in a string of words which are
all neuter. Nor should I much like to say _armum judicium_, though the
expression occurs in that same poet,--

"Nihilne ad te de judicio armum accidit?"

instead of _armorum_. But I do venture (following the language of the
censor's returns) to say _jabrum_ and _procum_, instead of _fabrorum_
and _procorum_. And I actually never by any chance say _duorum virorum
judicium_, or _triumvirorum capitalium_, or _decemvirorum litibus
judicandis_.

And Attius said--

"Video sepulchra dua duorum corporam."

And at another time he has said,--

"Mulier una duum virum."

I know which is proper; but sometimes I speak according to the licence
of the present fashion, so far as to say _Proh Deum_, or _Proh
Deorum_; and at other times I speak as I am forced to, when I say
_trium virum_, not _virorum_, and _sestertium nummum_, not _nummorum_;
because with respect to these words there is no variety of usage.

XLVII. What am I to say is the reason why they forbid us to say
_nosse, judicasse_, and enjoin us to use _novisse_ and _judicavisse_?
as if we did not know that in words of this kind it is quite correct
to use the word at full length, and quite in accordance with usage to
use it in its contracted form. And so Terence does use both forms, and
says,--

"Eho, tu cognatum tuum non noras?"

And afterwards he has,--

"Stilphonem, inquam, noveras?"

_Siet_ is the word at full length; _sit_ is the contracted form. One
may use either; and so we find in the same passage,--


"Quam cara sint, quae post carendo intelligunt,
Quamque attinendi magni dominatus sient."


Nor should I find fault with

"Scripsere alii rem."

I am aware that _scripserunt_ is the more correct form; but I
willingly comply with a fashion which is agreeable to the ears.

"Idem campus habet,"

says Eunius; and in another place he has given us,--

"In templis isdem;"

but _eisdem_ would be more regular; but yet it would not have been
so musical: and _iisdem_ would have sounded ill. But custom has
sanctioned our departing from strict rules for the sake of
euphony; and I should prefer saying _pomeridianas quadrigas_ to
_postmeridianas_, and _mehercule_ to _mehercules. Non scire_ already
appears a barbarism; _nescire_ is sweeter. The word _meridiem_ itself,
why is it not _medidiem_?

I suppose because it sounded worse. There is one preposition, _abs_,
which has now only an existence in account books; but in all other
conversation of every sort is changed: for we say _amovit_, and
_abegit_, and _abstulit_, so that you cannot now tell whether _ab_ is
the correct form or _abs_. What shall we say if even _abfugit_ has
seemed inadmissible, and if men have discarded _abfer_ and preferred
_aufer_? and that preposition is found in no word whatever except
these two verbs. There were the words _noti_, and _navi_, and _nari_,
and when _in_ was forced to be prefixed to them, it seemed more
musical to say _ignoti, ignavi, ignari_, than to adhere to the strict
rules. Men say _ex usu_ and _republica_, because in the one phrase a
vowel followed the preposition, and in the other there would have been
great harshness if you had not removed the consonant, as in _exegit,
edixit, effecit, extulit, edidit_. And sometimes the preposition has
sustained an alteration, regulated by the first letter of the verb to
which it is added, as _suffugit, summutavit, sustulit_.

XLVIII. What are we to say of compound words? How neat is it to
say _insipientem_, not _insapientem_; _iniquum_, not _incequum_;
_tricipitem_, not _tricapitem_; _concisum_, not concoesum! and,
because of this last instance, some people wish also to say
_pertisum_; but the same fashion which regulates the other changes,
has not sanctioned this one. But what can be more elegant than this,
which is not caused by nature, but by some regular usage?--we say
_inclytus_, with the first letter short; _insanus_, with the first
letter long; _inkumanus_, with a short letter; _infelix_, with a long
one: and, not to detain you with many examples, in those words in
which the first letters are those which occur in _sapiente_ and
_felice_, it is used long; in all others it is short. And so, too, we
have _composuit, consuevit, concrvpuit, confecit_. Consult the truth,
it will reprove you; refer the matter to your ears, they will sanction
the usage. Why so? Because they will say that that sound is the most
agreeable one to them; and an oration ought to consult that which
gives pleasure to the ears. Moreover, I myself, as I knew that our
ancestors spoke so as never to use an aspirate except before a vowel,
used to speak in this way: _pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos, Cartaginem_;
when at last, and after a long time, the truth was forced upon me by
the admonition of my own ears, I yielded to the people the right of
settling the rule of speaking; and was contented to reserve to myself
the knowledge of the proper rules and reasons for them. Still we say
_Orcivii_, and _Matones_ and _Otones, Coepiones, sepulchra, coronas,
lacrymas_, because that pronunciation is always sanctioned by the
judgment of our ears.

Ennius always used _Burrum_, never _Pyrrhum_: he says,--

"Vi patefecerunt Bruges;"

not _Phryges_; and so the old copies of his poems prove, for they had
no Greek letters in them. But now those words have two; and though
when they wanted to say _Phrygum_ and _Phrygibus_, it was absurd
either to use a Greek character in the barbarous cases only, or else
in the nominative case alone to speak Greek, still we say _Phrygum_
and _Phrygibus_ for the sake of harmonizing our ears. Moreover (at
present it would seem like the language of a ploughman, though
formerly it was a mark of politeness) our ancestors took away the last
letter of those words in which the two last letters were the same, as
they are in _optumus_, unless the next word began with a vowel. And
so they avoided offending the ear in their verse; as the modern poets
avoid it now in a different manner. For we used to say,--

"Qui est omnibu' princeps," not "omnibus princeps;"

and--

"Vita illa, dignu' locoquc," not "dignus."

But if unlettered custom is such an artist of euphony, what must we
think is required by scientific art and systematic learning?

I have put all this more briefly than if I were discussing this matter
by itself; (for this topic is a very extensive one, concerning the use
and nature of words;) but still I have been more prolix than the plan
I originally proposed to myself required.

XLIX. But because the choice of subjects and words is in the
department of prudence, but of sounds and rhythm it is the ears that
are the judges; because the one is referable to one's understanding,
the other only to one's pleasure; therefore in the one case it is
reason and in the other sensation that has been the inventor of the
system. For it was necessary for us either to disregard the pleasure
of those men by whom we wished to be approved of; or else it was
necessary to discover a system by which to gain their good-will.

There are then two things which soothe the ears; _sound_ and _rhythm_.
Concerning rhythm we will speak presently; at this moment we are
inquiring into sound. As I said before, words must be selected which
as much as possible shall sound well; but they must not be, like the
words of a poet, sought purely for sound, but taken from ordinary
language.

"Qua ponto a Helles"

is an extravagant expression; but

"Auratua aries Colehorum"

is a verse illuminated with splendid names. But the next verse is
polluted by ending with a most inharmonious letter;

"Frugifera et ferta arva Asiae tenet."

Let us therefore use the propriety of words of our own language,
rather than the brilliancy of the Greeks; unless perchance we are
ashamed of speaking in such a way as this--

"Qua tempestate Paris Helenam,"

and the rest of that sentence. Let us, I say, pursue that plan and
avoid harshness of sound.


"Habeo istam ego perterricrepam....
Versutiloquas malitias."


Nor is it enough to have one's words arranged in a regular system, but
the terminations of the sentences must be carefully studied, since we
have said that that is a second sort of judgment of the ears. But the
harmonious end of a sentence depends on the arrangement itself, which
is so of its own accord, if I may so express myself, or on some
particular class of words in which there is a certain neatness; and
whether such words have cases the terminations of which are similar,
or whether one word is matched with another which resembles it, or
whether contrary words are opposed to one another, they are harmonious
of their own nature, even if nothing has been done on purpose. In the
pursuit of this sort of neatness Gorgias is reported to have been the
leader; and of this style there is an example in our speech in defence
of Milo: "For this law, O judges, is not a written one, but a natural
one, one which we have not learnt, or received from others, or
gathered from books; but which we have extracted, and pressed out,
and imbibed from nature itself; it is one in which we have not been
educated, but born; we have not been brought up in it, but imbued with
it. For these sentences are such that, because they are referred to
the principles to which they ought to be referred, we see plainly that
harmony was not the thing that was sought in them, but that which
followed of its own accord. And this is also the case when contraries
are opposed to one another; as those phrases are by which not only a
harmonious sentence, but even a verse is made.

"Eam, quam nihil accusas, damnas."

A man would say _condemnas_ if he wished to avoid making a verse.


"Bene quam meritam esse autumas, dicis male mereri.
Id, quod scis, prodest nihil; id, quod nescis, obest."


The very relation of the contrary effects makes a verse that would be
harmonious in a narration.

"Quod scis, nihil prodest; quod nescis, multum obest."

These things, which the Greeks call [Greek: antitheta], as in them
contraries are opposed to contraries, of sheer necessity produce
oratorical rhythm; and that too without any intention on the part of
the orator that they should do so.

This was a kind of speaking in which the ancients used to take
delight, even before the time of Isocrates; and especially Gorgias;
in whose orations his very neatness generally produces an harmonious
rhythm. We too frequently employ this style; as in the fourth book of
our impeachment of Verres:--"Compare this peace with that war; the
arrival of this praetor with the victory of that general; the debauched
retinue of this man, with the unconquerable army of the other; the
lust of this man with the continence of that one; and you will say
that Syracuse was founded by the man who in reality took it; and was
stormed by this one, who in reality received it in an admirable and
settled condition."

This sort of rhythm then must be well understood.

L. We must now explain that third kind of an harmonious and
well-arranged speech, and say of what character it is; and what sort
of ears those people have who do not understand its character, or
indeed what there is in them that is like men at all, I do not know.
My ears delight in a well-turned and properly finished period of
words, and they like conciseness, and disapprove of redundancy. Why
do I say my ears? I have often seen a whole assembly raise a shout of
approval at hearing a musical sentence. For men's ears expect that
sentences shall be strung together of well-arranged words. This was
not the case in the time of the ancients. And indeed it was nearly the
only thing in which they were deficient: for they selected their words
carefully, and they gave utterance to dignified and sweet sounding
ideas; but they paid little attention to arranging them or filling
them up. "This is what delights me," one of them would say. What are
we to say if an old primitive picture of few colours delights some men
more than this highly finished one? Why, I suppose, the style which
succeeds must be studied again; and this latter style repudiated.

People boast of the names of the ancients. But antiquity carries
authority with it in precedents, as old age does in the lives of
individuals; and it has indeed very great weight with me myself. Nor
am I more inclined to demand from antiquity that which it has not,
than to praise that which it has; especially as I consider what it has
as of more importance than what it has not. For there is more good in
well chosen words and ideas in which they excel, than in the rounding
off of phrases in which they fail. It is after their time that the
working up of the termination of a sentence has been introduced; which
I think that those ancients would have employed, if it had been known
and employed in their day; as since it has been introduced we see that
all great orators have employed it.

LI. But it looks like envy when what we call "number," and the Greeks
[Greek: ruthmos] is said to be employed in judicial and forensic
oratory. For it appears like laying too many plots for the charming
of people's ears if rhythm is also aimed at by the orator in his
speeches. And relying on this argument those critics themselves utter
broken and abrupt sentences, and blame those men who deliver well
rounded and neatly turned discourses. If they blame them because their
words are ill adapted and their sentiments are trifling, they are
right; but if their arguments are sound, their language well chosen,
then why should they prefer a lame and halting oration to one which
keeps pace with the sentiments contained in it? For this rhythm which
they attack so has no other effect except to cause the speaker to
clothe his ideas in appropriate language; and that was done by the
ancients also, not unusually by accident, and often by nature; and
those speeches of theirs which are exceedingly praised, are so
generally because they are concisely expressed. And it is now near
four hundred years since this doctrine has been established among the
Greeks; we have only lately recognised it. Therefore was it allowable
for Ennius, despising the ancient examples, to say:--


"In verses such as once the Fauns
And ancient poets sang:"


and shall it not be allowed me to speak of the ancients in the same
manner? especially as I am not going to say, "Before this man ..." as
he did; nor to proceed as he did, "We have ventured to open ..." For I
have read and heard of some speakers whose orations were rounded off
in an almost perfect manner. And those who cannot do this are not
content with not being despised; they wish even to be praised for
their inability. But I do praise those men, and deservedly too, whose
imitators they profess to be; although I see something is wanting in
them. But these men I do not praise at all, who imitate nothing of the
others except their defects, and are as far removed as possible from
their good qualities.

But if their own ears are so uncivilised and barbarous, will not the
authority of even the most learned men influence them? I say nothing
of Isocrates, and his pupils Ephorus and Naucrates; although those men
who are themselves consummate orators ought also to be the highest
authorities on making and ornamenting a speech. But who of all men
was ever more learned, or more acute, or a more accurate judge of
the discovery of, or decision respecting all things than Aristotle?
Moreover, who ever took more pains to oppose Isocrates? Aristotle
then, while he warns us against letting verses occur in our speeches,
enjoins us to attend to rhythm. His pupil Theodectes, one of the most
polished of writers, (as Aristotle often intimates,) and a great
artist, both felt and enjoined the same thing. And Theophrastus is
more distinct still in laying down the same rule.

Who then can endure those men who do not agree with such authorities
as these? Unless indeed they are ignorant that they ever gave any such
rules. And if that is the case, (and I really believe it is,) what
then? Have they no senses of their own to be guided by? Have they no
natural idea of what is useless? None of what is harsh, cramped, lame,
or superfluous? When verses are being repeated, the whole theatre
raises an outcry if there is one syllable too few or too many.
Not that the mob knows anything about feet or metre; nor do they
understand what it is that offends them, or know why or in what it
offends them. But nevertheless nature herself has placed in our ears a
power of judging of all superfluous length and all undue shortness in
sounds, as much as of grave and acute syllables.

LII. Do you wish then, O Brutus, that we should give a more accurate
explanation of this whole topic, than those men themselves have done
who have delivered these and other rules to us? Or may we be content
with those which have been delivered by them? But why do I ask whether
you wish this? when I know from your letters, written in a most
scholar-like spirit, that you wish for it above all things. First of
all, then, the origin of a well-adapted and rhythmical oration shall
be explained, then the cause of it, then its nature, and last of all
its use.

For they who admire Isocrates above all things, place this among his
very highest panegyrics, that he was the first person who added rhythm
to prose writing. For they say that, as he perceived that orators were
listened to with seriousness, but poets with pleasure, he then aimed
at rhythm so as to use it in his orations both for the sake of giving
pleasure, and also that variety of sound might prevent weariness. And
this is said by them in some degree correctly, but not wholly so. For
we must confess that no one was ever more thoroughly skilled in that
sort of learning than Isocrates; but still the original inventor of
rhythm was Thrasymachus; all whose writings are even too carefully
rhythmical. For, as I said a little while ago, the principle of things
like one another being placed side by side, sentence after sentence
being ended in a similar manner, and contraries being compared
with contraries, so that, even if one took no pains about it, most
sentences would end musically, was first discovered by Gorgias; but he
used it without any moderation. And that is, as I have said before
one of the three divisions of arrangement. Both of these men were
predecessors of Isocrates; so that it was in his moderation, not in
his invention, that he is superior to them. For he is more moderate in
the way in which he inverts or alters the sense of words; and also in
his attention to rhythm. But Gorgias is a more insatiable follower of
this system, and (even according to his own admission) abuses these
elegances in an unprecedented way; but Isocrates (who while a young
man had heard Gorgias when he was an old man in Thessaly) put all
these things under more restraint. Moreover he himself, as he advanced
in age, (and he lived nearly a hundred years,) relaxed in his ideas of
the exceeding necessity for rhythm; as he declares in that book which
he wrote to Philip of Macedon, when he was a very old man, in which he
says that he is less attentive to rhythm than he had formerly been.
And so he had corrected not only his predecessors, but himself also.

LIII. Since, then, we have those men whom we have mentioned as the
authors and originators of a well-adapted oration, and since its
origin has been thus explained, we must now seek for the cause.
And that is so evident, that I marvel that the ancients were not
influenced by it; especially when, as is often the case, they often by
chance made use of well-rounded and well-arranged periods. And when
they had produced their impression on the minds and ears of men, so as
to make it very plain that what chance had effected had been received
with pleasure, certainly they ought to have taken note of what had
been done, and have imitated themselves; for the ears, or the mind by
the report of the ears, contains in itself a natural measurement
of all sounds. That is how it distinguishes between long and short
sounds; and always watches for well-wrought and moderate periods. It
feels that some are mutilated and curtailed, as it were, and with
those it is offended, as if it were defrauded of its due; others it
feels to be too long, and running out to an immoderate length, and
those the ears reject even more than the first; for as in most cases,
so especially in this kind of thing, it happens that what is in excess
is much more offensive than that which errs on the side of deficiency.

As, therefore, poetry and verse was invented by the nicety of the ear,
and the careful observation of clever men; so it has been noticed in
oratory, much later, indeed, but still in deference to the promptings
of the same nature, that there are some certain rules and bounds,
within which words and paragraphs ought to be confined.

Since, therefore, we have thus shown the cause, we will now, if you
please, explain the nature of it; for that was the third division; and
that involves a discussion which has no reference to the original plan
of this treatise, but which belongs rather to the arcana of the art.
For the question may be asked, what is the rhythm of a speech; and
where it is placed; and in what it originates; and whether it is one
thing, or two, or more; and on what principles it is arranged; and for
what purpose; and how and in what part it is situated, and in what way
it is employed so as to give any pleasure.

But as in most cases, so also in this one, there are two ways of
looking at the question; one of which is longer, the other shorter,
and at the same time plainer.

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