The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• Key to Abbreviations and References
• Introduction
• 1.: The Manuscript
• 2.: The Lectures
• 3.: Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages
• 4.: Rhetoric and Literary Criticism
• 5.: System and Aesthetics
• Bibliographical Note
• Lectures On Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: Lecture 2D.
• Lecture 3D.: Of the Origin and Progress of Language 1
• Lecture 4tha
• Lecture 5. A
• Lecture 6.THA: Of What Is Called the Tropes and Figures of Speech. B
• Lecture. 7. A
• Lecture. 8. A
• Lecture. 9tha
• Lecture. 10tha
• Lecture. 11 a
• Lecture. 12.THA: Of Composition
• Lecture. 13 a
• | Lecture. 14 a
• Lecture 15tha
• Lecture. 16th. a
• Lecture XVII. A
• Lecture Xviii a
• Lecture. Xixth. a
• Lecture. XX.THA
• Lecture Xxist. a
• Lecture Xxiida
• Lecture Xxiiida
• Lecture Xxivtha
• Lecture XXV. A
• Lecture Xxvitha
• Lecture Xxvii a
• Lecture Xxviiitha
• Lecture Xxix a
• Lecture. Xxx a
• Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages,&c. &c.1
• Appendix 1 (see P. 32) the Bee, Or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, For Wednesday, May 11, 1791.
• Appendix 2 Table of Corresponding Passages

Lecture XXVI^tha

Monday Jan^r, 31. 1763

In the last Lecture I endeavoured to give you some notion of the Manner and Spirit of the Deliberative orations of Demosthenes. Besides them there have no Deliberative orations of any of the Greek Orators come down to our time: Unless we should reckon those two περι χαλονησον and περι των μετ’ Αλεξανδρον συνθηκων, 1 which are commonly ascribed to Demosthenes; But more probably were composed by Hegesippus. But who ever be the author of them, they are certainly not Demosthenes’s, they are altogether silly and triviall and are not of merit sufficient to deserve any consideration.

We shall therefore proceed <to> the Deliberative orations of Cicero which are the chief ones that remain in the Latin Language. These we shall find are of a very different Genius from those of Demosthenes. They have a certain Gravity and affectation of dignity which <those> of the latter want ^b . It is commonly said the Latin is a grave and Solemn Language and much more so than the Greek which is | 152 said to be a merry and Sprightly one. It were easy to shew that all languages Greek and Latin not excepted are equally ductile and equally accommodated to all different tempers. The Stile indeed of the Latin authors has much more of Solemnity and affected dignity and ornament than that of the Greek authors. The difference betwixt Stile and Language is often not attended to, and has not been observed by severall authors, tho they be in themselves very different: And to this ^c it is owing that what is true only of the Stile of the Writers has been ascribed to the nature and temper of the Language itself.

That we may better understand the particular temper and Genius of Ciceros manner of writing and the Causes of it; It will be proper to make some observations on the State of the Roman Commonweal and the temper of the People at the time he wrote. Which tho one of the most important parts of History is generally too little insisted on by authors, and understood | 153 by very few.

Before this time the great distinctions of the people had been in a great measure abolished; all magistracies were now become attainable by the whole of the multitude. Those magistracies which were formerly the peculiar province of the Patricians were laid upon to every one. The Senatoriall dignity, the office of the Praetor, Censor, Ædile etc. (which were called the Curule magistracies) were no longer confind to the old Patricians. The factions of the State were formerly those of the Patricians and Plebeians; the differences and contentions which sprung up after the expulsion of the Kings all arose from the rivalship of those two bodies. But by these continu’d contentions the magistracies and all of power and profit were by degrees open’d to the People. From these immense riches and immence power and interest were often acquired by individualls, both of the | 154 Patrician and the nobler Plebeian Families. There are many instances of immense fortunes raised by the oppression of those who were under the Power and direction of the different officers. The Proconsul Verres may serve as an instan<c>e of this; and there are many of as extraordinary and immense power obtain’d by those who instead of oppressing chose to ingratiate themselves with those whom they had under their Subjection, Ma<r>ius, Cinna etc.—The authority of the Senate was now indeed little more than nominal; they could make no Laws nor transact any business of importance without the consent and approbation of the people; Some few offices remained at their disposall; but their approbation to the decrees of the people was in most cases no more than a mere form. There had indeed been some attempts to reinstate the Patricians in their former authority and | 155 Sylla even made laws to this effect, but the alteration made by them was so great that they were ^d allowed to subsist no longer than the power of him who introduced them. By this means the old Parties of Patrician and Plebeian were at an end. It was now as much the interest of the chief men of the Plebeians to support the authority of the ^e Senate and other dignified offices as it had formerly been to curb them. The power or wealth they had acquired or had a prospect of acquiring by them, were sufficient motives for them to promote the authority of those office[e]s and the depression of those who were subject to them. This joint interest formed a division amongst the Citizens somewhat similar but considerably different from the old one. On[e] the one side were all the Richer and more powerfull of the Citizens, whe| 156ther Patrician or Plebeians; all who had either enjoyed the offices of Power and profit or those who had a prospect of reaping those advantages. That is to say the People of fashion; all who would go under the Denomination of Gentlemen. These were called Optimates, a word signifying no more than that they were, as we would say, the better sort, people of fashion.—The other faction was those of the Plebeians who had not power nor riches to make them considerable nor any hopes of arriving at those offices which would make it in their power to obtain them. These were the lowest most despicable people imaginable, supported chiefly by the Donations of the nobles. They were the Rabble and Mob, and a most wretched and miserable set of men imaginable. These would for their | 157 own safety oppose the Oppression and extortion of the nobles, and attach themselves to those who to gain Power and weight in the common wealth courted the favour of this order. The method <of> these men, who from their attachment to the Populace were called Populares, was to propose Laws for the equall division of Lands and the distributing of Corn at the Publick charge, or else by Largesses and bounties bestowed out of their own private fortune. ^f Of this sort were Clodius, Marius and others.

The effects therefore of the communication of the magistracies and the laying them open to all the people were very different at Rome from what they were at Athens. Neither the territory of the commonwealth nor the authority of the magistrates was so considerable as to put it in the power | 158 of those who filled the offices of State to acquire any extraordinary Riches and consequently gave them less opportunity of courting the favour of the multitude with success. By this means the magistracies continued open to all those who had merit enough to deserve them and gained the favour of their fellow citizens. The innequality of fortune was not so great as to make any distinction amongst the Citizens. 5 Talents was reckon’d a great ^g estate for an Athenian citizen; for we find Demosthenes Reproaching his Rival Æschines 2 with not having celebrated with sufficient magnificence some public Show; for says he ‘You can not plead poverty in your defence as you was then worth above 5 Talents’. ^h A 100 times that would have been but a very moderate fortune at Rome. And Demosthenes ⁱ also mentions that his Brother in Law would have been one of the richest men in Athens as his Father left him 52 Tals. | 159 The poorest Citizens might here by trade raise themselves fortunes equall to those of the most wealthy. As there was therefore no considerable distinction of Fortune, so there was properly but one rank of Citizens; the highest were Citizens and no more and the lowest had the same priviledge. In Rome on the other hand, the great power and immense wealth which were attendant on all the Chief offices of the State soon destroyed that equality which the communication of the magistracies meant to establish. The People was therefore divided into two Factions, that of the Optimates and that of the Populares. The first comprehended all those who had either enjoyed or had a reasonable expectation of enjoying the magistracies; that is, the few Remaining Old Patricians and all the Noble Plebeian familys and those who had power or interest to advance themselves. In the other were all the Plebeians who were not noble nor had any expectations of raising themselves to offices by which they might attain Power or Riches. | 160 These (as I said) were a most wretched and destitute set of men; they depended for their very subsistence 1^st on the liberality of the Candidates in their Largesses at Elections, which were indeed often prohibited ^j and could not afterwards be publickly avowed; but it was a vain attempt to hinder the people from accepting of such presents for their votes, or the Candidates from endeavouring to carry their Elections by that means; or 2^dly on the Distributions of Corn or other necessarys which were made ^k by the publick either for no price or at a low one. There was here no middle Rank betwixt those who had the greatest ^l wealth and power and those who were in the most abject poverty and dependance. The Knights in the earlier periods were a sort of middle betwixt the Plebeians and the Patricians and somewhat restrained the extravagancies of either. They were at this time horsemen, Equites, and were distinguished from the rest of the people by the manner of their service.

| 161 We may observe that knights in all countries were mere horsemen originally, but when military service was not so much used they have become of a very different Rank. ^m A knight in this country is a very different person from a dragoon.—In the same manner the Roman Equites were at first those who composed the Cavallry. But after the Victory of Marius over the Cimbri, they were never employed in that service. They were soon[er] after allowed to be Elected into the Senate, and from that time became of the same party with the remaining Patricians and other nobles. As there was but one order at Athens so there was properly only two ⁿ orders at Rome, the great and the populace.

Besides this the Athenians and the Romans treated their favourites ^o in a very different manner. All appearance <of> pride or extrao<r>dinary authority or presumption of any sort was looked <on> at Athens with a jealous eye. The people were offended with Alcibiades their greatest favourite, for wearing a dress | 162 somewhat more splendid than was ordinarily worn by the Citizens. But the Luxury of Lucullus or the Splendor of Pompey, were not objects of Jealousy to the Romans. Tho the Athenians could not allow Alcibiades to go gayly dressed the Romans beheld without suspicion Pompey attended by the flower of the young nobility, a great part of the Senate and the chief men of the City.

{The people never at this time opposed the growing power of their favourites, all they did was looked on with the greatest ease. The only check they met with was from the opposition and conterary endeavours of the other nobility who in the same manner strove to get to the head of affairs.}

The Nobleman of Rome would, then, find himself greatly superior to the far greater part of [a] mankind; He would see at Rome 1000 who were his inferiors for one who was even his equalls; and anywhere else there would be none would could ^p compare with him in power or wealth. Finding himself thus superior to most about him he would contract a great opinion of his own dignity. He would have an air of superiority in all his behaviour. As he spoke generally to his inferiors he would talk in a manner becoming one in that Station. Respect and deference would be what he thought his due as one of superior dignity and his behaviour would aim at approving himself to be such. His discourse | 163 would be pompous and <o>rnate and such as appeard to be the language of a superior sort of man.

At Athens on the other hand the Citizens were all on equall footing; the greatest and the meanest were considered as being noway distinguished, and lived and talkd together with the greatest familiarity. Difference of fortune or employment did not hinder the ease and familiarity of behaviour. It is observed that there is no Politeness or Compliments in the Dialogues of Plato; whereas those of Cicero abound with them. Particularly in his Dialogues de Oratore, the noblemen he introduces talk in the most Polite manner and pay one another the greatest respect, and commend in the most complimenting Stile. Plato again introduces persons of the most unequall Dignity or Power in the State talking with the greatest freedom And familiarity such as would appear very odd at this day amongst people of such differen<t> stations ^q ; and there is generally one person who roasts, tiezes and exposes the others without mercy, and often with a turn of humour which would not <be> at this day altogether polite or even decent.—In the one country the People at least the Nobles would converse ^r and harangue with Dignity, | 164 Pomp and the air of those who speak with authority. The language of the others would be that of freedom, ease and familiarity. The one is that where the speaker is supposed to be of Superior Dignity and author<ity> to his hearers and the other is that of one who talks to his equalls. Pomp and Splendor suit the former well enough but would appear presumption in the other.

These considerations may serve to explain many of the differences in the manners and Stile of Demosthenes and Cicero.—The latter ^s talks with the Dignity and authority of a superior and the former with the ease of an equall. Cicero therefore studies allways ^t to add what ever ^u may give this appearance to his Stile even on the most trivial occasions, and the other talks with ease and familiarity even when he is the most earnest and vehement. {Demosthenes abounds with all the Common phrases and Idioms, and Proverbs; Cicero on the other hand avoids all Idiomaticall turns or other Vulgar expressions with the greatest care.} Cicero abounds with all those figures of spee<ch> which are thought to give dignity to language; his Stile is always correct and to the highest degree, | 165 with the greatest propriety of expression and the strictest observance of grammaticall propriety. This makes it evident that the author conceives himself to be of importance, and dignity; For this exact and ornate stile shows that every word is premeditated and that he has settled before he begun the sentence in what manner he was to conclude it.

There are certain forms of Speech which are peculiar to common conversation; and plainly appear to proceed from the carelessness of the speaker, who had not resolved when he begun his sentence in what manner he was to end it. These are called ἀνακολουθα i.e. unconnected, without consequence; Where the one part of the sentence is of a different Grammaticall construction from the other. The Greek writers abound with this figure, but none more than Xenophon and Demosthenes. I shall mention an instance from each to explain the matter. Xenophon: The sentence in Latin would run thus, Hephaestus et Menon, quoniam sunt amici vestrum, remittite nobis; the gram<maticall> const<ruction> plainly would require here that he should have Hephestum et Menona etc. In the same manner | 166 we would say in easy conversation, Hephestus and Menon as they are your friends, send them back to us; instead of, Send back etc. Or, John or James suchathing ^v , I know not what is become of him; instead of, I do not know, or I know no<t> what is become etc. The one we would use in conversation or familiar letter ^w writing and the latter in a formal discourse or in writing a history. This has been much used by Demosthenes and other Greeks; but Cicero and most Latin[e] writers have entirely rejected it, as well as almost all modern authors; as it testifies a great degree of carelessness in the speaker. The instance in Demosthenes ^x I do not remember, but there are two places in the same sentence where the forgoing [me]member by the means of some words would require the subsequent to have been altogether of an other form.

Again Demosthenes’ periods are for the most part short and concise, ^y without any redundancy of expression; Whereas Cicero always runs out into a long train of connected [me]members even on the most simple subject. And even when Demosthenes is obliged by the quantity of matter which crouds | 167 in upon him to form a long period he never affects those ornaments of similarity of cadence and uniformity of length in the severall members, which is so much studied by Cicero.—This difference is very visible in their Deliberative orations but still more in their Judiciall ones.

Again, the familiar ^z ease with which Demosthenes writes makes him often use illustrations or examples as well as expressions that appear rather low and ludicrous ^a . This is remarkable in his comparisons where he often compares things of the greatest importance to others of a very conterary nature. Thus he compares the p<eople> ^b sending a fleet to ^c after it had been plundered and destroyed to a Boxer who always clapt his hand to the place where he felt the smart of the last blow, without attending to parry off the approaching ones or lay on any himself. 3 Cicero on the other hand compares the most triviall things, and that too when he is Rallying, with the most serious, as for instance; he says 4 that the conduct of Mithridates in leaving his treasure in Pontus, which by employing the troops in plunder | 168 gave the King himself time to escape, was like that of Medea who to retard the pursuit of her father tore her Brother in pieces and strewed his limbs on the sea, that she whil[e]st her father was employed in taking them up might have time to escape. ^d

These differences in the Stile of these orators may probably arise from the different condition of the countries in which they lived; the tempers of the men had ^e no doubt also have had their effects. The vanity and pride if you will call it so which Cicero was possessed of may perhaps have made him more ornate and pompous than the temper of his audience would have required, and on the other hand the severity and downright plainess of Demosthenes may have made him more bare and careless than even the familiarity and equallity of his countrymen would have required. To this too it may be owing that Demosthenes is at no pains to Repeat or expatiate on his subject, which Cicero as we hinted always studies.

This much with regard to the expression and man| 169ner of writing. As to the matter and the arrangement these two great Orators seem to have succeded with equall good fortune. The matter and the arrangement of Demos<thenes> as we said is almost always the same, as his Design is the same and his audience favourable. Those of Cicero are more various in all these respects; but his success in adapting himself to the severall exigencies of the cause is no less conspicuous.

Such then are the different manners of Dem<osthenes> and Cicero, both adapted to the state of their country, and perhaps had they been practised in the other countries they would have been less succ[c]essfull. Brutus ^f and ^g we are told attempted this which they called the Attick eloquence, and blamed Cicero for the unpolishd and bold method of his orations. But we do not find that their success was at all comparable to that of Cicero, or of Hortensius 5 and ^h the first of ⁱ which if we may believe Cicero was still more florid and ornate | 170 than he; and the other appears from the fragments preserved by Quintilian 6 to have been very pretty and very florid, just like Cicero. This study of Ornament and Pomp was common not only to all the Roman orators but to the Historians and the poets themselves. Thus Livy and Tacitus are much more ornate etc. than Herodotus and Thucydides; Virgill and, Propertius than Homer and Hesiod; ^j than Theognis 7 etc.; and Lucretius the most simple of all the Roman Poets is far more ornate than Hesiod. When this Study is so generall we may be well assured that it proceeded not from any pecularity or humour of the writers but from the nature and temper of the nation. Tis this ornate manner I would have you chiefly remark in Cicero. It appears indeed most in his Judiciall orations. The one I shall translate is the fourth Catalinan one. 8 I translate it not because I in the least imagine there are any of you here who would not understand the originall | 171 but because it would be unfair to compare an originall of Cicero with a translation of Demosthenes. The occasion was when Cato and S<ilanus> ^k counselled the Senate to put those unworthy and abominable cives ^l to Death and Caesar and ^m counselled to spare their lives as the Senate had not, after the Sempronian law, the power of condemning to capitall punishment, but to confine them for life alledging this to be a more severe and heavier punishment on Courageous men. Cicero, then Consull, was afraid to counsell Death least the odium should fall on him alone, but yet inclined and offered to execute the commands of the Fathers to do it. Betwixt these he wavers and his whole oration is one continued train of Tergiversation; Which tho a most weak and pusillanimous temper and which afterwards caused him to be banished for that very action which he was afraid to avow, yet is managed in a most artfull, ornate and elegant manner. And | 172 when in this case he is ornate, we may conceive what he must be in other cases.

[a]MS XXVth

[1 ]The titles of the two non–Demosthenic speeches already referred to at ii.141 above were misheard by the scribe: περὶ Ἀλοννήσου, On Halonnesus, and περὶ τω̂ν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκω̂ν, On the Treaty with Alexander. The first was generally attributed to Hegesippus, an equally vigorous opponent of Philip, though Dionysius of Halicarnassus thought Demosthenes the author: see On the Style of Demosthenes, 9 (The Critical Essays, i. LCL). Hyperides was once credited with the second; for his works see Minor Attic Orators ii (LCL).

[b]They . . . want written vertically in margin

[c]MS thus; changed from And thus are

[d]they were replaces it was

[e]Patricians deleted

[f]MS fertune

[g]MS greet estates, s deleted

[2 ]The reproach of Demosthenes against Aeschines is in De Corona, 312; apart from his own resources he had inherited more than five talents from the estate of his father–in–law Philo, and had contributed nothing to the state’s projects.

[h]ten deleted

[i]a line above and below in MS

[j]as by the Lex Servia (?) deleted

[k]out deleted

[l]power deleted

[m]They deleted

[n]replaces one

[o]with a deleted

[p]changed from would

[q]last seventeen words vertically in margin

[r]or ta written above and deleted

[s]replaces one

[t]ways replaces the ornaments

[u]MS evoer

[v]a line above and below in MS

[w]MS litter

[x](WFL) deleted: i.e. wait for laugh?

[y]with <blank> and even when deleted (three–letter blank)

[z]MS familiari, final i deleted

[a]replaces mean

[b]rest of word supplied conjecturally for blank in MS; initial letter might be h

[c]blank of five letters in MS

[3 ]In Philippic I.40 the Athenians are blamed for always, despite their great military and material resources, fighting the previous battle, sending expeditions which arrived too late (e.g. to Pagasae in southern Thessaly already taken by Philip).

[4 ]Pro Lege Manilia (cf. ii.109 n.7 above), 22. Cicero refers in a different context to Medea, her brother Absyrtus and her father Aeetes: De Natura Deorum, III.xix.48.

[d]mistaken criticism I think inserted vertically in margin

[e]for may?

[f]squeezed into blank left before and

[g]blank of five letters in MS

[5 ]In Brutus, xcv.325 ff. Cicero discusses types of ‘Asiatic’ oratory: see Introduction. p. 16. Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (114–50 bc) was the leading forensic orator in the 70s bc, and noted for his theatrical style; cf. ii.239 below.

[h]blank of seven letters in MS (The blanks referred to in this and the preceding note can be supplied from Brutus, lxxxi–lxxxii. 280–4. C. Licinius Calvus 82–? 47 bc, leader of the ‘Atticist’ movement in Rome, to which he gave the name; and lxxix. 273, M. Caelius Rufus 82–48 bc, pupil and initially follower of Cicero, and successfully defended by him in the Pro Caelio).

[i]these deleted

[6 ]Quintilian has comments on Caelius at IV.ii.27, 123 ff.; X.i.115; XII.x.11; XII.xi.6 (taught by Cicero); quotations from him at I.v.61; I.vi.29, 42; VI.iii.25, 39, 41; VIII.vi.53; IX.iii.58; XI.i.51.

[j]blank of about ten letters in MS; short blank after etc.

[7 ]The scribe has confused the pairing: Theognis (c.544 bc) the elegiac poet clearly goes with Propertius, and Virgil as both epic and didactic poet is paired with Homer and Hesiod. Thus no blanks are left unfilled.

[8 ]Cicero, In Catilinam, IV.7: Decimus Silanus pressed for the death sentence on the conspirators, Caesar though arguing for the full rigour of the law opposed him. Cicero makes oblique reference to Crassus (perhaps the blank after Caesar?), absent in order to avoid the odium of voting in a capital case. The passage echoes Silanus’ argument: ‘hoc genus poenae saepe in improbos civis in hac republica esse usurpatum’, and conduct which disqualifies a man from being worthy of citizenship.

[k]supplied conjecturally by JML for a blank beginning S

[l]word partly illegible through blotting. (Cives as the term for Glasgow students might occur naturally to the scribe)

[m]blank of five letters in MS