Crassus is speaking.
Your influence and friendship, as well as Antonius’1 fluency, deprive me of the freedom to say no, although I would have very good reason for doing so. In distributing the topics for our discussion, he took responsibility for explaining the content of an oration, while leaving it to me to explain how a speech is to be enriched. He divided what cannot be separated, for inasmuch as every speech consists of content and language, language has no basis without content, and content is imperceptible without language.
Men of old,2 having embraced more with their minds, seem to me also to have seen much more than our mind’s eye can observe. They stated that all reality, above and below, is a single entity, held together by a single natural pattern of harmonious interaction; for there is no class of entity which, plucked from everything else, can stand on its own, or without which everything else can retain its ongoing power of existence.
But if this seems to be too grand an explanation for human perception or cognition to grasp, there is also a true saying of Plato3 (surely familiar to you, Catulus),4 to the effect that all the teaching of the free and humane arts is held together by a single bond of association; when we perceive the explanatory power of reason, whereby causes and consequences come to be known, we find a marvellous unity and harmony of all branches of learning. And if this explanation, too, seems too lofty for us earth-bound beings, surely we ought to know and grasp the one presented earlier, which we have embraced, which we profess, which we have acknowledged as our own. For eloquence is a single entity, into whatever shores and regions of discussion it is carried, as I insisted yesterday and as Antonius indicated at several points in the conversation this morning.
Whether we talk of the nature of the heavens and earth or divine and human power, whether from a position of inferiority or equality or superiority, whether we seek to stir men to action, to teach them, to deter them, to rile them or calm them, set them on fire or soothe them, whether we speak to a few or many, among foreigners or our own people or with ourselves, good speaking is distributed into channels, not drawn from different sources, and wherever it proceeds, is accompanied by the same procedures of adornment.
But these days we are flooded with the opinions, not only of the common people, but also of those who, despite a veneer of education, are unable to grasp the totality of the subject and thus find it easier to handle it by picking it apart, separating words from thoughts or body from mind, which is the death of both. Therefore I will not discuss more than has been asked of me, but merely state in brief that polished language is impossible unless thought is also being expressed, and that no thought can be clear and impressive without clear and impressive language.
Before I try to touch upon the various means by which, in my view, discourse is polished and made radiant, I will state briefly my view of oratory as a totality. As I see it, there is no natural category that does not contain within it numerous dissimilar objects, which nonetheless deserve similar respect. For example, many sounds perceived with our ears delight us, even though they are so varied that the one you just heard seems most charming. Our eyes take in innumerable captivating delights that please a single sense in diverse manners. And different objects of delight gratify the remaining senses, so much so that it is difficult to decide which is the most agreeable.
And what is true of natural entities is also applicable to the arts: there is a single art of sculpture, in which Myro, Polyclitus and Lysippus5 excelled, despite differing from one another; a single art and discipline of painting, in which the very different painters Zeuxis, Aglaophon and Apelles6 excelled, without any one of them seeming to be deficient in his art. And if all this is both remarkable and true where non-verbal arts are concerned, how much more remarkable when it comes to language and oratory? Although the same thoughts and words may be employed, speeches can have very great differences, without it being the case that some speakers are to be derided. Rather, those who deserve praise should be praised, despite a difference in style.
The validity of this observation is clear from poetry, which is closest in nature to oratory. How greatly Ennius, Pacuvius and Accius7 differ among themselves, or Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides8 among the Greeks – yet virtually the same degree of respect is attributed to all, despite their difference in style. Consider examples from our area of inquiry: Isocrates was charming, Lysias subtle, Hyperides sharp-witted, Aeschines sonorous, Demosthenes9 forceful. Which of them was not outstanding? Yet which was similar to anyone but himself? Africanus was authoritative, Laelius gentle, Galba a little rough, Carbo10 fluent, even tuneful. Which of these was not a leading orator of days gone by? Yet each was a leader in his own style.
Still, why do I look to the past, when it’s possible to find examples among those alive and present right here? What has ever been more pleasing to our ears than a speech of Catulus?11 His eloquence is so pure that it seems as though he’s the only person who speaks Latin; so serious, yet humane and charming, with a dignity all his own. What else can I say? When listening to him I always think that to add or change or take away anything would only make the speech worse. And what about our friend Caesar?12 Hasn’t he introduced a new style of oration and manner of speaking that is almost unique? Who besides him has treated tragic affairs with a comic touch, sad topics in an easy-going style, severe matters light-heartedly, the business of the court with the charm of a play? In his speeches humour coexists with seriousness, and his witticisms never diminish the gravity of the issue. And here in our midst also are two orators of almost the same age, Sulpicius and Cotta.13 What a difference between them! How distinctive the excellence of each! Cotta is accurate and precise, explicating his subject matter in appropriate and well-suited language. He sticks to the case always, and once he has keenly determined what needs to be proven, fixes his mind and speech on it, omitting all other arguments. Sulpicius, in contrast, with his ferocious intelligence, full and booming voice, remarkable combination of physical energy and dignified movement, and abundance of serious expressions, seems by nature uniquely equipped for public speaking.
To turn now to the two of us, since we are so often compared that it’s almost as if we were being called to court in the judgements of men. What could be more dissimilar than my way of speaking and that of Antonius? Although he is an orator without a superior, I am frequently paired with him by way of comparison, despite my dissatisfaction with myself. You’re familiar with the style of Antonius, are you not? He is bold, vehement, energetic in delivery, his speeches fortified on every side, keen, acute, precise, with each point given due attention. He is generous in making concessions, energetic in pursuing any advantage; he intimidates, he implores, he uses every type of style without causing the audience to feel overwhelmed.
As for me, whatever my status as an orator, although all of you hold me in some esteem, I am still quite different in my style from Antonius. Whether it’s good or not isn’t for me to say; after all, we know ourselves least of all and have the hardest time with self-assessment. Still, the difference between Antonius and me is apparent in my limited reliance on movement, that is, my tendency to finish my speech standing just where I started; also in the great effort I make in selecting vocabulary, due to my fear that if my speech is a little too old-fashioned it might not seem worthy of the undisturbed attention of the audience.
But if such differences and distinguishing characteristics are apparent among those of us here present, with quality decided on ability and not choice of style – indeed every performance that is perfect in its own way deserves praise – well, what do you think would happen if we took into consideration all orators from every locale and every era? Don’t you think we’d find almost as many styles as there are speakers?
On the basis of what I’ve just said, it might seem to some that if there are almost innumerable types of speaking, different in appearance but in their own kind praiseworthy, then styles that are so different can’t be fashioned on the basis of shared teachings and a single type of instruction. In fact, this isn’t the case, and it’s necessary for instructors to observe very carefully the natural inclination of each student. We are well aware that impressive students of very different types can and do emerge from the same classroom, as long as the teacher adjusts instruction to the natural inclination of each.
Leaving aside the other arts, we find an excellent instance of this principle in Isocrates’ remark that as teacher he used spurs on Ephorus and reins on Theopompus:14 in other words, he repressed the bold language of the one and tried to fire up the shy hesitation of the other. He didn’t make them turn out the same, but added to the one and filed down the other in order to make them conform to their respective natures.
Well, I’ve said all this by way of introduction so that if not everything I propose is to your preference or style, you will understand that I am describing the style that I approve the most.