Book: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4

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




But those laws which are unwritten, owe their influence either to
custom or to some agreement between, and as it were to the common
consent of men. And indeed it is in some degree prescribed to us by
the laws of nature, that we are to uphold our customs and laws. And
since the foundations of equity have been briefly explained in this
manner, we ought to meditate carefully, with reference to causes of
this kind, on what is to be said in our speeches about nature, and
laws, and the customs of our ancestors, and the repelling of injuries,
and revenge, and every portion of human rights. If a man has done
anything unintentionally, or through necessity, or by accident, which
men would not be excused for doing if they did it of their own accord
and intentionally, by way of deprecating punishment for the action he
should implore pardon and indulgence, founding his petition on many
topics of equity. I have now explained as well as I could every kind
of controversy, unless there is anything besides which you wish to
know.

XXXVIII. _C.F._ I wish to know that which appears to me to be the
only point left,--what is to be done when the discussion turns upon
expressions in written documents.

_C.P._ You are right to ask: for when that is explained I shall have
discharged the whole of the task which I have undertaken. The rules
then which relate to ambiguity are common to both parties. For each of
them will urge that the signification which he himself adopts is the
one suited to the wisdom of the framer of the document; each of them
will urge that that sense which his adversary says is to be gathered
from the ambiguous expression in the writing, is either absurd,
or inexpedient, or unjust, or discreditable, or again that it is
inconsistent with other written expressions, either of other men,
or, if possible, of the same man. And he will urge further that the
meaning which he himself contends for is the one which would have been
intended by every sensible and respectable man; and that such an one
would express himself more plainly if the case were to come over
again, and that the meaning which he asserts to be the proper one has
nothing in it to which objection can be made, or with which any fault
can be found; but that if the contrary meaning is admitted, many
vices, many foolish, unjust, and inconsistent consequences must
follow. But when it appears that the writer meant one thing and wrote
another, then he who relies on the letter of the law must first
explain the circumstances of the case, and then recite the law; then
he must press his opponent, repeat the law, reiterate it, and ask
him whether he denies that that is the expression contained in the
writing, or whether he denies the facts of the case. After that he
must invoke the judge to maintain the letter of the law. When he has
dwelt on this sort of corroborative argument he must amplify his case
by praising the law, and attack the audacity of the man who, when he
has openly violated it, and confesses that he has done so, still comes
forward and defends his conduct. Then he must invalidate the defence
when his opponent says that the writer meant one thing and wrote
another, and say that it is intolerable that the meaning of the framer
of the law should be explained by any one else in preference to the
law itself. Why did he write down such words if he did not mean them?
Why does the opponent, while he neglects what is plainly written,
bring forward what is not written anywhere? Why should he think that
men who were most careful in what they wrote are to be convicted of
extreme folly? What could have hindered the framer of this law from
making this exception which the opponent contends that he intended to
make, if he really had intended it? He will then bring forward those
instances where the same writer has made a similar exception, or if
he cannot do that, at least he will cite cases where others have made
similar exceptions. For a reason must be sought for, if it is possible
to find one, why this exception was not made in this case. The law
must be stated to be likely to be unjust, or useless, or else that
there is a reason for obeying part of it, and for abrogating part; it
must be that the argument of the opponent and the law are at variance.
And then, by way of amplification, it will be proper, both in other
parts of the speech, and above all in the peroration, to speak with
great dignity and energy about the desirableness of maintaining the
laws, and of the danger with which all public and private affairs are
threatened.

XXXIX. But he who defends himself by appeals to the spirit and
intention of the law, will urge that the force of the law depends on
the mind and design of the framer, not on words and letters. And he
will praise him for having mentioned no exceptions in his law, so
as to leave no refuge for offences, and so as to bind the judge to
interpret the intention of the law according to the actions of each
individual. Then he must cite instances in which all equity will be
disturbed if the words of the law are attended to and not the meaning.
Then all cunning and false accusation must be endeavoured to be put
before the judge in an odious light, and complaints uttered in a
tone of indignation. If the action in question has been done
unintentionally, or by accident, or by compulsion, rather than in
consequence of any premeditation,--and actions of those kinds we have
already discussed,--then it will be well to use the same topics of
equity to counteract the effect of the harshness of the language.

But if the written laws contradict one another, then the connexion of
art is such, and most of its principles are so connected and linked
together, that the rules which we a little while ago laid down for
cases of ambiguity, and which have just been given with reference to
the letter and spirit of the law, may be all transferred to this third
division also. For the topics by which, in the case of an ambiguous
expression, we defended that meaning which is favourable to our
argument must also be used to defend the law which is favourable to us
when there are inconsistent laws. In the next place, we must contrive
to defend the spirit of one law, and the letter of the other. And so
the rules which were just now given relating to the spirit and letter
of the law may all be transferred to this subject.

XL. I have now explained to you all the divisions of oratory which
have prevailed, as laid down by the academy to which we are devoted,
and if it had not been for that academy they could not have been
discovered, or understood, or discussed. For the mere act of division,
and of definition, and the distribution of the partitions of a
doubtful question, and the understanding the topics of arguments, and
the arranging the argumentation itself properly, and the discerning
what ought to be assumed in arguing, and what follows from what has
been assumed, and the distinguishing what is true from what is false,
and what is probable from what is incredible, and refuting assumptions
which are not legitimate, or which are inappropriate, and discussing
all these different points either concisely as those do who are called
dialecticians, or copiously as an orator should do, are all fruits of
the practice in disputing with acuteness and speaking with fluency,
which is instilled into the disciples of that academy. And without a
knowledge of these most important arts how can an orator have either
energy or variety in his discourse, so as to speak properly of things
good or bad, just or unjust, useful or useless, honourable or base?

Let these rules then, my Cicero, which I have now explained to you, be
to you a sort of guide to those fountains of eloquence, and if under
my instruction or that of others you arrive at them, you will then
acquire a clearer understanding of these things and of others which
are much more important.

_C.F._ I will strive to arrive at them with great eagerness, my
father; and I do not think that there is any greater advantage which I
can derive even from your many excellent kindnesses to me.




THE TREATISE OF M. T. CICERO ON THE BEST STYLE OF ORATORS.


This little piece was composed by Cicero as a sort of preface to his
translation of the Orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines de Corona; the
translations themselves have not come down to us.

I. There are said to be classes of orators as there are of poets. But
it is not so; for of poets there are a great many divisions; for of
tragic, comic, epic, lyric, and also of dithyrambic poetry, which has
been more cultivated by the Latins, each kind is very different from
the rest. Therefore in tragedy anything comic is a defect, and in
comedy anything tragic is out of place. And in the other kinds of
poetry each has its own appropriate note, and a tone well known to
those who understand the subject. But if any one were to enumerate
many classes of orators, describing some as grand, and dignified,
and copious, others as thin, or subtle, or concise, and others as
something between the two and in the middle as it were, he would be
saying something of the men, but very little of the matter. For as to
the matter, we seek to know what is the best; but as to the man, we
state what is the real case. Therefore if any one likes, he has a
right to call Ennius a consummate epic poet, and Pacuvius an excellent
tragic poet, and Caecilius perhaps a perfect comic poet. But I do not
divide the orator as to class in this way. For I am seeking a perfect
one. And of perfection there is only one kind; and those who fall
short of it do not differ in kind, as Attius does from Terentius; but
they are of the same kind, only of unequal merit. For he is the best
orator who by speaking both teaches, and delights, and moves the
minds of his hearers. To teach them is his duty, to delight them is
creditable to him, to move them is indispensable. It must be granted
that one person succeeds better in this than another; but that is not
a difference of kind but of degree. Perfection is one thing; that
is next to it which is most like it; from which consideration it is
evident that that which is most unlike perfection is the worst.

II. For, since eloquence consists of words and sentences, we must
endeavour, by speaking in a pure and correct manner, that is to say in
good Latin, to attain an elegance of expression with words appropriate
and metaphorical. As to the appropriate words, selecting those which
are most suitable; and when indulging in metaphor, studying to
preserve a proper resemblance, and to be modest in our use of foreign
terms. But of sentences, there are as many different kinds as I
have said there are of panegyrics. For if teaching, we want shrewd
sentences; if aiming at giving pleasure, we want musical ones; if
at exciting the feelings, dignified ones. But there is a certain
arrangement of words which produces both harmony and smoothness; and
different sentiments have different arrangements suitable to them, and
an order naturally calculated to prove their point; but of all
those things memory is the foundation, (just as a building has a
foundation,) and action is the light. The man, then, in whom all
these qualities are found in the highest perfection, will be the most
skilful orator; he in whom they exist in a moderate degree will be a
mediocre orator: he in whom they are found to the slightest extent
will be the most inferior sort of orator. All these, indeed, will be
called orators, just as bad painters are still called painters; not
differing from one another in kind, but in ability. So there is no
orator who would not like to resemble Demosthenes; but Menander did
not want to be like Homer, for his style was different.

This difference does not exist in orators; or if there be any such
difference, that one avoiding gravity aims rather at subtlety; and on
the other hand, that another desires to show himself acute rather
than polished: such men, although they may be tolerable orators, are
certainly not perfect ones; since that is perfection which combines
every kind of excellence.

III. I have stated these things with greater brevity than the subject
deserves; but still, with reference to my present object, it was
not worth while being more prolix. For as there is but one kind of
eloquence, what we are seeking to ascertain is what kind it is. And it
is such as flourished at Athens; and in which the genius of the Attic
orators is hardly comprehended by us, though their glory is known to
us. For many have perceived this fact, that there is nothing faulty
in them: few have discerned the other point; namely, how much in them
there is that is praiseworthy. For it is a fault in a sentence if
anything is absurd, or foreign to the subject, or stupid, or trivial;
and it is a fault of language if any thing is gross, or abject, or
unsuitable, or harsh, or far-fetched. Nearly all those men who are
either considered Attic orators or who speak in the Attic manner have
avoided these faults. But if that is all their merit, then they may
deserve to be regarded as sound and healthy, as if we were regarding
athletes, to such an extent as to be allowed to exercise in the
palaestra, but not to be entitled to the crown at the Olympic games.
For the athletes, who are free from defects, are not content as it
were with good health, but seek to produce strength and muscles and
blood, and a certain agreeableness of complexion; let us imitate them,
if we can; and if we cannot do so wholly, at least let us select as
our models those who enjoy unimpaired health, (which is peculiar to
the Attic orators,) rather than those whose abundance is vicious, of
whom Asia has produced numbers. And in doing this (if at least we can
manage even this, for it is a mighty undertaking) let us imitate, if
we can, Lysias, and especially his simplicity of style: for in many
places he rises to grandeur. But because he wrote speeches for many
private causes, and those too for others, and on very trifling
subjects, he appears to be somewhat simple, because he has designedly
filed himself down to the standard of the inconsiderable causes which
he was pleading.

IV. And a man who acts in this way, even if he be not able to turn out
a vigorous speaker as he wishes, may still deserve to be accounted an
orator, though an inferior one; but even a great orator must often
also speak in the same manner in causes of that kind. And in this way
it happens that Demosthenes is at times able to speak with simplicity,
though perhaps Lysias may not be able to arrive at grandeur. But if
men think that, when an army was marshalled in the forum and in all
the temples round the forum, it was possible to speak in defence of
Milo, as if we had been speaking in a private cause before a single
judge, they measure the power of eloquence by their own estimate of
their own ability, and not by the nature of the case. Wherefore, since
some people have got into a way of repeating that they themselves do
speak in an Attic manner, and others that none of us do so; the one
class we may neglect, for the facts themselves are a sufficient answer
to these men, since they are either not employed in causes, or when
they are employed they are laughed at; for if the laughter which
they excite were in approbation of them, that very fact would be a
characteristic of Attic speakers. But those who will not admit that we
speak in the Attic manner, but yet profess that they themselves are
not orators; if they have good ears and an intelligent judgment, may
still be consulted by us, as one respecting the character of a picture
would take the opinion of men who were incapable of making a picture,
though not devoid of acuteness in judging of one. But if they place
all their intelligence in a certain fastidiousness of ear, and if
nothing lofty or magnificent ever pleases them, then let them say that
they want something subtle and highly polished, and that they despise
what is dignified and ornamented; but let them cease to assert that
those men alone speak in the Attic manner, that is to say, in a
sound and correct one. But to speak with dignity and elegance and
copiousness is a characteristic of Attic orators. Need I say more? Is
there any doubt whether we wish our oration to be tolerable only, or
also admirable? For we are not asking now what sort of speaking is
Attic: but what sort is best. And from this it is understood, since
those who were Athenians were the best of the Greek orators, and since
Demosthenes was beyond all comparison the best of them, that if any
one imitates them he will speak in the Attic manner, and in the
best manner, so that since the Attic orators are proposed to us for
imitation, to speak well is to speak Attically.

V. But as there was a great error as to the question, what kind of
eloquence that was, I have thought that it became me to undertake a
labour which should be useful to studious men, though superfluous
as far as I myself was concerned. For I have translated the most
illustrious orations of the two most eloquent of the Attic orators,
spoken in opposition to one another: Aeschines and Demosthenes. And I
have not translated them as a literal interpreter, but as an orator
giving the same ideas in the same form and mould as it were, in words
conformable to our manners; in doing which I did not consider it
necessary to give word for word, but I have preserved the character
and energy of the language throughout. For I did not consider that
my duty was to render to the reader the precise number of words, but
rather to give him all their weight. And this labour of mine will have
this result, that by it our countrymen may understand what to require
of those who wish to be accounted Attic speakers, and that they may
recal them to, as it were, an acknowledged standard of eloquence.

But then Thucydides will rise up; for some people admire his
eloquence. And they are quite right. But he has no connexion with the
orator, which is the person of whom we are in search. For it is
one thing to unfold the actions of men in a narration, and quite a
different one to accuse and get rid of an accusation by arguing. It is
one thing to fix a hearer's attention by a narration, and another to
excite his feelings. "But he uses beautiful language." Is his language
finer than Plato's? Nevertheless it is necessary for the orator whom
we are inquiring about, to explain forensic disputes by a style of
speaking calculated at once to teach, to delight, and to excite.

VI. Wherefore, if there is any one who professes that he intends to
plead causes in the forum, following the style of Thucydides, no one
will ever suspect him of being endowed with that kind of eloquence
which is suited to affairs of state or to the bar. But if he is
content with praising Thucydides, then he may add my vote to his own.
Moreover, even Isocrates himself, whom that divine author, Plato, who
was nearly his contemporary, has represented in the Phaedrus as being
highly extolled by Socrates, and whom all learned men have called a
consummate orator, I do not class among the number of those who are to
be taken for models. For he is not engaged in actual conflict; he is
not armed for the fray; his speeches are made for display, like foils.
I will rather, (to compare small things with great,) bring on the
stage a most noble pair of gladiators. Aeschines shall come on like
aeserninus, as Lucilius says--


"No ordinary man, but fearless all,
And skill'd his arms to wield--his equal match
Pacideianus stands, than whom the world
Since the first birth of man hath seen no greater."


For I do not think that anything can be imagined more divine than that
orator. Now this labour of mine is found fault with by two kinds of
critics. One set says, "But the Greek is better." And I ask them
whether the authors themselves could have clothed their speeches
in better Latin? The others say, "Why should I rather read the
translation than the original?" Yet those same men read the Andria and
the Synephebi; and are not less fond of Terence and Caecilius than of
Menander. They must then discard the Andromache, and the Antiope, and
the Epigoni in Latin. But yet, in fact, they read Ennius and Pacuvius
and Attius more than Euripides and Sophocles. What then is the meaning
of this contempt of theirs for orations translated from the Greek,
when they have no objection to translated verses?

VII. However, let us now come to the task which we have undertaken,
when we have just explained what the cause is which is before the
court.

As there was a law at Athens, that no one should be the cause of
carrying a decree of the people that any one should be presented with
a crown while invested with office till he had given in an account of
the way in which he had discharged its duties; and another law, that
those who had crowns given them by the people ought to receive them in
the assembly of the people, and that they who had them given to them
by the senate should receive them in the senate; Demosthenes was
appointed a superintendent of repairs of the walls; and he did it at
his own expense. Therefore, with reference to him Ctesiphon proposed
a decree, without his having given in any accounts, that he should be
presented with a golden crown, and that that presentation should take
place in the theatre, the people being summoned for the purpose, (that
is not the legitimate place for an assembly of the people;) and that
proclamation should be made, "that he received this present on account
of his virtue and devotion to the state, and to the Athenian people."
Aeschines then prosecuted this man Ctesiphon because he had proposed
a decree contrary to the laws, to the effect that a crown should be
given when no accounts had been delivered, and that it should be
presented in the theatre, and that he had made false statements in the
words of his motion concerning Demosthenes's virtue and loyalty; since
Demosthenes was not a good man, and was not one who had deserved well
of the state.

That kind of cause is indeed inconsistent with the precedents
established by our habits; but still it has an imposing look. For it
has on each side of the question a sufficiently clever interpretation
of the laws, and a very grave contest as to the respective services
done by the two rival orators to the republic. Therefore the object of
Aeschines was, since he himself had been prosecuted on a capital charge
by Demosthenes, for having given a false account of his embassy, that
now a trial should take place affecting the conduct and character of
Demosthenes, that so, under pretence of prosecuting Ctesiphon, he
might avenge himself on his enemy. For he did not say so much about
the accounts not having been delivered, as to the point that a very
bad citizen had been praised as an excellent.

Aeschines instituted this prosecution against Ctesiphon four years
before the death of Philip of Macedon. But the decision took place a
few years afterwards; when Alexander had become master of Asia. And it
is said that all Greece thronged to hear the issue of the trial. For
what was ever better worth going to see, or better worth hearing,
than the contest of two consummate orators in a most important cause,
inflamed and sharpened by private enmity?

If then, as I trust, I have given such a copy of their speeches, using
all their excellencies, that is to say, their sentiments, and their
figures, and the order of their facts; adhering to their words only so
far as they are not inconsistent with our customs, (and though they
may not be all translated from the Greek, still I have taken pains
that they should be of the same class,) then there will be a standard
to which the orations of those men must be directed who wish to speak
Attically. But I have said enough of myself--let us now hear Aeschines
speaking in Latin. (_These Orations are not extant_.)




END OF THE TREATISE.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Dolabella had been married to Cicero's daughter Tullia,
but was divorced from her.]

[Footnote 2: The name was given them early. Juvenal, who wrote within
a hundred years of Cicero's time, calls them "divina Philippica."]

[Footnote 3: This meeting took place on the third day after Caesar's
death.]

[Footnote 4: [Greek: Mae mnaesikakin].]

[Footnote 5: The hook was to drag his carcass along the streets to
throw it into the Tiber. So Juvenal says--

"Sejanus ducitur unco
Spectandus."--x. 66.]

[Footnote 6: This refers to a pillar that was raised in the forum
in honour of Caesar, with the inscription, "To the Father of his
Country."]

[Footnote 7: _See_ Philippic 2.]

[Footnote 8: This was the name of a legion raised by Caesar in Gaul,
and called so, probably, from the ornament worn on their helmet.]

[Footnote 9: He meant to insinuate that Antonius had been forging
Caesar's handwriting and signature]

[Footnote 10: Fulvia, who had been the wife of Clodius, and afterwards
of Curio, was now the wife of Antonius.]

[Footnote 11: These were the names of slaves.]

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