Cicero's Brutus or History of Famous Orators · Marcus Tullius Cicero
THE ORATOR.
But let the Greeks determine for themselves: we Romans are not allowed to interrupt the connection of our words. Even the rude and unpolished Orations of _Cato_ are a proof of this; as are likewise all our poets, except in particular instances, in which they were obliged to admit a few breaks, to preserve their metre. Thus we find in _Naevius_, "_Vos_ QUI ACCOLITIS _histrum_ FLUVIUM ATQUE ALGIDUM." And in another place, "_Quam nunquam vobis_ GRAII ATQUE _Barbari_." But _Ennius_ admits it only once, when he says, "_Scipio invicte_;" and likewise I myself in "_Hoc motu radiantis_ ETESIAE IN _Vada Ponti_." This, however, would seldom be suffered among us, though the Greeks often commend it as a beauty. But why do I speak of a collision of vowels? for, omitting this, we have frequently _contracted_ our words for the sake of brevity; as in _multi' modis, vas' argenteis, palm' et crinibus, tecti' fractis_, &c. We have sometimes also contracted our proper _names_, to give them a smoother sound: for as we have changed _Duellum_ into _Bellum_, and _duis_ into _bis_, so _Duellius_, who defeated the Carthagenians at sea, was called _Bellius_, though all his ancestors were named _Duellii_. We likewise abbreviate our words, not only for convenience, but to please and gratify the ear. For how otherwise came _axilla_ to be changed into _ala_, but by the omission of an unweildy consonant, which the elegant pronunciation of our language has likewise banished from the words _maxillae, taxillae, vexillum_, and _paxillum_?
_Stilphonem, inquam, noveras_? Thus also, _fiet_ is a perfect verb, and _fit_ a contracted one; and accordingly we find in the same Comedian, _Quam cara_ SINTQUE _post carendo intelligunt_, and _Quamque attinendi magni dominatus_ SIENT. In the same manner I have no objection to _scripsere alii rem_, though I am sensible that _scripserunt_ is more grammatical; because I submit with pleasure to the indulgent laws of custom which delights to gratify the ear. _Idem campus habet_, says Ennius; and in another place, _in templis îsdem_; _eisdem_, indeed, would have been more grammatical, but not sufficiently harmonious; and _iisdem_ would have sounded still worse. But we are allowed by custom even to dispense with the rules of etymology to improve the sweetness of our language; and I would therefore rather say, _pomeridianas Quadrigas_, than _postmeridianas_; and _mehercule_, than _mehercules_. For the same reason _non scire_ would now be deemed a barbarism, becaule _nescire_ has a smoother sound; and we have likewise substituted _meridiem_ for _medidiem_, because the latter was offensive to the ear. Even the preposition _ab_, which so frequently occurs in our compound verbs is preserved entire only in the formality of a Journal, and, indeed, not always there: in every other sort of language it is frequently altered. Thus we say _amovit_, _abegit_, and _abstulit_; so that you can scarcely determine whether the primitive preposition should be _ab_ or _abs_. We have likewise rejected even _abfugit_, and _abfer_, and introduced _aufugit_ and _aufer_ in their stead;--thus forming a new preposition, which is to be found in no other verb but these. _Noti_, _navi_, and _nari_, have all been words in common use: but when they were afterwards to be compounded with the preposition _in_, it was thought more harmonious to say _ignoti_, _ignavi_, and _ignari_, than to adhere strictly to the rules of etymology. We likewise say _ex usu_, and _e Republicâ_; because, in the former case, the preposition is followed by a vowel, and, in the latter, it would have sounded harshly without omitting the consonant; as may also be observed in _exegit, edixit, refecit, retulit_, and _reddidit_.
_Vi patefecerunt BRUGES_, not _Phryges_; because the Greek vowel had not then been adopted, though we now admit both that and the aspirate:--and, in fact, when we had afterwards occasion to say _Phrygum_ and _Phrygibus_, it was rather absurd to adopt the Greek letter without adopting their cases, [Footnote: This passage, as it stands in the original, appears to me unintelligible: I have therefore taken the liberty to give it a slight alteration.] or at least not to confine it to the nominative; and yet (in the accusative) we say _Phryges_, and _Pyrrhum_, to please the ear. Formerly it was esteemed an elegancy, though it would now be considered as a rusticism, to omit the _s_ in all words which terminate in _us_, except when they were followed by a vowel; and the same elision which is so carefully avoided by the modern Poets, was very far from being reckoned a fault among the ancient: for they made no scruple to say, _Qui est OMNIBU' princeps_, not, as we do, OMNIBUS princeps; and, _Vitâ illâ DIGNU' locoque_, not _dignus_. But if untaught custom has been so ingenious in the formation of agreeable sounds, what may we not expect from the improvements of art and erudition? I have, however, been much shorter upon this subject, than I should have been if I had written upon it professedly: for a comparison of the natural and customary laws of language would have opened a wide field for speculation: but I have already enlarged upon it sufficiently, and more, perhaps, than the nature of my design required.
_Quà tempestate Paris Helenam, &c_. we might even imitate what follows, and avoid, as far as possible, the smallest asperity of sound, _habeo istam ego PERTERRICREPAM_; or say, with the same author, in another passage, _versutiloquas MALITIAS_. But our words must have a proper _compass_, as well as be connected together in an agreeable manner; for this, we have observed, is another circumstance which falls under the notice of the ear. They are confined to a proper compass, either by certain rules of composition, as by a kind of natural pause, or by the use of particular forms of expression, which have a peculiar _concinnity_ in their very texture; such as a succession of several words which have the same termination, or the comparing similar, and contrasting opposite circumstances, which will always terminate in a measured cadence, though no immediate pains should be taken for that purpose. Gorgias, it is said, was the first Orator who practised this species of _concinnity_. The following passage in my Defence of _Milo_ is an example. "Est enim, Judices, haec non _scripta_, fed _nata_ Lex; quam non _didicimus, accepimus, legimus_, verum ex Naturâ ipsâ _arripuimus, hausimus, expressimus_; ad quam non _docti_, sed _facti_; non _instituti_, sed _imbuti_ simus." "For this, my Lords, is a law not written upon tables, but impressed upon our hearts;--a law which we have not learned, or heard, or read, but eagerly caught and imbibed from the hand of Nature;--a law to which we have not been train'd, but originally form'd; and with the principles of which we have not been furnished by education, but tinctured and impregnated from the moment of our birth."
"Conferte _hanc Pacem_ cum _illo Bello_;--_hujus_ Praetoris _Adventum_, cum _illius_ Imperatoris _Victoriâ_;--hujas _Cohortem impuram_, cum illius _Exercitu invicto_;--hujus _Libidines_, cum illius _Continentiâ_;--ab illo qui cepit _conditas_; ab hoc, qui constitutas accepit, _captas_ dicetis Syracusas." "Compare this detestable _peace_ with that glorious _war_,--the _arrival_ of this governor with the _victory_ of that commander,--his _ruffian guards_, with the _invincible forces_ of the other;--the brutal luxury of the former, with the modest temperance of the latter;--and you will say, that Syracuse was really _founded_ by him who _stormed_ it, and _stormed_ by him who received it already _founded_ to his hands."--So much, then, for that kind of measure which results from particular forms of expression, and which ought to be known by every Orator.
We must now proceed to the third thing proposed,--that _numerous_ and well-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible as not to feel it, I cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or what resemblance of a human Being! For my part, my ears are always fond of a complete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant what is either defective or redundant. But wherefore do I say _mine_? I have frequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at a happy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should be properly tuned and measured. This, however, is an accomplishment which is not to be met with among the ancients. But to compensate the want of it, they had almost every other perfection: for they had a happy choice of words, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had not the art of harmonizing and completing their periods. This, say some, is the very thing we admire. But what if they should take it into their heads to prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, to the rich and finished style of the moderns? The former, I suppose, must be again adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected.
But these pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ of antiquity. It must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim to authority in matters of imitation, as grey hairs in the precedence of age. I myself have as great a veneration for it as any man: nor do I so much upbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she was mistress of:--especially as I judge the latter to be of far greater consequence than the former. For there is certainly more real merit in a masterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowed to excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totally unacquainted. This species of composition was not known among the Romans till lately: but the ancients, I believe, would readily have adopted it, if it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is now made use of by all Orators of reputation. "But when _number_, or (as the Greeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicial and forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound: for people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to sooth and captivate their ears, when the Speaker is so over-exact as to attend to the harmony of his periods."
_Before this bold adventurer_, &c. (meaning himself:) nor, as he afterwards exults to the same purpose, _I first have dar'd t'unfold_, &c. for I have both read and heard several who were almost complete masters of the numerous and measured style I am speaking of: But many, who are still absolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridicule they deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. I must own, indeed, that I admire the venerable patterns, of which those persons pretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects I observe in them: but I can by no means commend the folly of those who copy nothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the most distant resemblance in what is truly excellent.
But if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they pay no deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated for their learning? I will not mention _Isocrates_, and his two scholars, _Ephorus_ and _Naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving the richest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent Orators. But who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtle and acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and a greater strength of understanding, than _Aristotle_? I may add, who made a warmer opposition to the rising fame of _Isocrates_? And yet _he_, though he forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. His hearer _Theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and an excellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and _Theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. Who, then, can have patience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to oppose themselves to such venerable names as these? The only excuse that can be made for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and are therefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we are speaking of. If this is the case with them (and I cannot think otherwise) will they reject the evidence of their own sensations? Is there nothing which their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harsh and unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothing redundant? In dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim against a verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yet the bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, and are totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but Nature herself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determine the propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute.
Do you desire, then, my Brutus, that we should discuss the subject more fully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the other parts of rhetoric? Or shall we content ourselves with the instructions which _they_ have provided for us? But wherefore do I offer such a question, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is the chief object of your request? We shall proceed, therefore, to give an account of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of _prosaic numbers_. The admirers of Isocrates place the first invention of numbers among those other improvements which do honour to his memory. For observing, say they, that the Orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while the Poets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce a species of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon the ear, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continued uniformity of sound. This, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise; for though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in the subject than _Isocrates_; yet the first honour of the invention belongs to _Thrasymachus_, whose style (in all his writings which are extant) is _numerous_ even to a fault. But _Gorgias_, as I have already remarked, was the original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have a kind of spontaneous harmony,--such as a regular succession of words with the same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting opposite circumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them to excess. This, however, is one of the three branches of composition above- mentioned.
But each of these authors was prior to _Isocrates_: so that the preference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not for the _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turn of his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are more composed and sedate. But _Gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, and indulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess. He, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he had first studied in his youth under the same _Gorgias_, who was then in Thessaly, and in the last decline of life. Nay, as he advanced in years (for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and gradually relaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularly informs us in the treatise which he dedicated to Philip of Macedon, in the latter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off that servile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--so that he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of his predecessors.
Having thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the first commencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the natural source and origin of it. But this lies so open to observation, that I am astonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, by mere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, when they had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to make it obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chance alone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species of ornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would have taken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. For the ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has a natural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordingly feel that it instantly determines what is either too short or too long, and always expects to be gratified with that which is complete and well- proportioned. Some expressions it perceives to be imperfect, and mutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defrauded of it's natural due. In others it discovers an immoderate length, and a tedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgusted than with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess is always more offensive than a proportional defect. As versification, therefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of the ear, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so in prose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidance of nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our language should be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits.
So much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. We must next proceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the nature of it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceeds the limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in a professed and accurate system of the art. For we might here inquire what is meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence it arises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of any variety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when and where it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear. But as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods of disquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other more concise, and, I might also add, more easy and comprehensible. In the former, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any such thing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because no fixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long have been for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend for it's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it.
Granting, however, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired of what kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of the poets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which of them may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, and some more, while others object to none. We might then proceed to enquire (be the number of them to be admitted, more or less) whether they are equally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive, and the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether the different species of Oratory should be accommodated with their different numbers. If the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we must next enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differently applied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they are not to be used so openly in prose as in verse.
It might likewise be a matter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by the use of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture of our words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression; --and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiar province, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, composition the _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of our language,--and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of all the rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to those figurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the Greeks, as I have before observed, are called ([Greek: _schaemaia_],) _attitudes_ or _figures_. But to me there appears to be a real distinction between what is agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of _expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closely connected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerous without any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently different from both, as attending entirely either to the _majestic_ or _agreeable_ sound of our words. Such then are the enquiries which relate to the _nature_ of prosaic harmony.
From what has been said it is easy to infer that prose is susceptible of _number_. Our sensations tell us so: and it would be excessively unfair to reject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. Even poetic metre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere natural taste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved and methodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention to nature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensations gave birth to art. But in verse the use of _number_ is more obvious; though some particular species of it, without the assistance of music, have the air of harmonious prose, and especially the lyric poetry, and that even the best of the kind, which, if divested of the aid of music, would be almost as plain and naked as common language. We have several specimens of this nature in our own poets [Footnote: It must here be remarked, that the Romans had no lyric poet before _Horace_, who did not flourish till after the times of _Cicero_.]; such as the following line in the tragedy of _Thyestes_, "_Quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tardâ senectute_; "Whom shall I call thee? who in tardy age," &c.; which, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken for prose. But the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblance to the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you can scarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it is evident that it is more difficult to adapt numbers to prose than to verse.
There are two things, however, which give a relish to our language,--well- chosen words, and harmonious _numbers_. Words may be considered as the _materials_ of language, and it is the business of _number_ to smooth and polish them. But as in other cases, what was invented to serve our necessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so, in the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted to express our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the invention of _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. Accordingly _Herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea of prosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random, and by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (I mean those of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though they have left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management of our style. For what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, for that reason, always first discovered. Metaphors, therefore, and new-made and compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowed from custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from our domestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with common language; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till every other improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the last touches to the style of Eloquence.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.