Letters of Pliny
to the advancement of your honours? The rank you bear in our province,
as decurio, is a proof that you are possessed, at least, of an hundred
thousand sesterces;[15] but that we may also have the satisfaction of
seeing you a Roman Knight,[16] I present you with three hundred
thousand, in order to make up the sum requisite to entitle you to that
dignity. The long acquaintance we have had leaves me no room to
apprehend you will ever be forgetful of this instance of my friendship.
And I know your disposition too well to think it necessary to advise you
to enjoy this honour with the modesty that becomes a person who receives
it from me; for the advanced rank we possess through a friend's kindness
is a sort of sacred trust, in which we have his judgment, as well as our
own character, to maintain, and therefore to be guarded with the greater
caution. Farewell.
XIV -- TO CORNELIUS TACITUS
I HAVE frequent debates with a certain acquaintance of mine, a man of
skill and learning, who admires nothing so much in the eloquence of the
bar as conciseness. I agree with him, that where the case will admit of
this precision, it may with propriety be adopted; but insist that, to
leave out what is material to be mentioned,--or only briefly and
cursorily to touch upon those points which should be inculcated,
impressed, and urged well home upon the minds of the audience, is a
downright fraud upon one's client. In many cases, to deal with the
subject at greater length adds strength and weight to our ideas, which
frequently produce their impression upon the mind, as iron does upon
solid bodies, rather by repeated strokes than a single blow. In answer
to this, he usually has recourse to authorities, and produces Lysias[17]
amongst the Grecians, together with Cato and the two Gracchi, among our
own countrymen, many of whose speeches certainly are brief and
curtailed. In return, I name Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides,[18] and
many others, in opposition to Lysias; while I confront Cato and the
Gracchi with Cæsar, Pollio,[19] Caelius,[20] but, above all, Cicero,
whose longest speech is generally considered his best. Why, no doubt
about it, in good compositions, as in everything else that is valuable,
the more there is of them, the better. You may observe in statues,
basso-relievos, pictures, and the human form, and even in animals and
trees, that nothing is more graceful than magnitude, if accompanied with
proportion. The same holds true in pleading; and even in books a large
volume carries a certain beauty and authority in its very size. My
antagonist, who is extremely dexterous at evading an argument, eludes
all this, and much more, which I usually urge to the same purpose, by
insisting that those very individuals, upon whose works I found my
opinion, made considerable additions to their speeches when they
published them. This I deny; and appeal to the harangues of numberless
orators, particularly to those of Cicero, for Murena and Varenus, in
which a short, bare notification of certain charges is expressed under
mere heads. Whence it appears that many things which he enlarged upon at
the time he delivered those speeches were retrenched when he gave them
to the public. The same excellent orator informs us that, agreeably to
the ancient custom, which allowed only of one counsel on a side,
Cluentius had no other advocate than himself; and he tells us further
that he employed four whole days in defence of Cornelius; by which it
plainly appears that those speeches which, when delivered at their full
length, had necessarily taken up so much time at the bar were
considerably cut down and pruned when he afterwards compressed them into
a single volume, though, I must confess, indeed, a large one. But good
pleading, it is objected, is one thing, just composition another. This
objection, I am aware, has had some favourers; nevertheless, I am
persuaded (though I may, perhaps, be mistaken) that, as it is possible
you may have a good pleading which is not a good speech, so a good
speech cannot be a bad pleading; for the speech on paper is the model
and, as it were, the archetype of the speech that was delivered. It is
for this reason we find, in many of the best speeches extant, numberless
extemporaneous turns of expression; and even in those which we are sure
were never spoken; as, for instance, in the following passage from the
speech against Verres: --"A certain mechanic--what's his name? Oh, thank
you for helping me to it: yes, I mean Polyclitus." It follows, then,
that the nearer approach a speaker makes to the rules of just
composition, the more perfect will he be in his art; always supposing,
however, that he has his due share of time allowed him; for, if he be
limited of that article, no blame can justly be fixed upon the advocate,
though much certainly upon the judge. The sense of the laws, I am sure,
is on my side, which are by no means sparing of the orator's time; it is
not conciseness, but fulness, a complete representation of every
material circumstance, which they recommend. Now conciseness cannot
effect this, unless in the most insignificant cases. Let me add what
experience, that unerring guide, has taught me: it has frequently been
my province to act both as an advocate and a judge; and I have often
also attended as an assessor.[21] Upon those occasions, I have ever
found the judgments of mankind are to be influenced by different modes
of application, and that the slightest circumstances frequently produce
the most important consequences. The dispositions and understandings of
men vary to such an extent that they seldom agree in their opinions
concerning any one point in debate before them; or, if they do, it is
generally from different motives. Besides, as every man is naturally
partial to his own discoveries, when he hears an argument urged which
had previously occurred to himself, he will be sure to embrace it as
extremely convincing. The orator, therefore, should so adapt himself to
his audience as to throw out something which every one of them, in turn,
may receive and approve as agreeable to his own particular views. I
recollect, once when Regulus and I were engaged on the same side, his
remarking to me, "You seem to think it necessary to go into every single
circumstance: whereas I always take aim at once at my adversary's
throat, and there I press him closely." ('Tis true, he keeps a tight
hold of whatever part he has once fixed upon; but the misfortune is, he
is extremely apt to fix upon the wrong place.) I replied, it might
possibly happen that what he called the throat was, in reality, the knee
or the ankle. As for myself, said I, who do not pretend to direct my aim
with so much precision, I test every part, I probe every opening; in
short, to use a vulgar proverb, I leave no stone unturned. And as in
agriculture, it is not my vineyards or my woods only, but my fields as
well, that I look after and cultivate, and (to carry on the metaphor) as
I do not content myself with sowing those fields simply with corn or
white wheat, but sprinkle in barley, pulse, and the other kinds of
grain; so, in my pleadings at the bar, I scatter broadcast various
arguments like so many kinds of seed, in order to reap whatever may
happen to come up. For the disposition of your judges is as hard to
fathom as uncertain, and as little to be relied on as that of soils and
seasons. The comic writer Eupolis,[22] I remember, mentions it in praise
of that excellent orator Pericles, that
"On his lips Persuasion hung, And powerful Reason rul'd his tongue: Thus
he alone could boast the art To charm at once, and pierce the heart."
[23] But could Pericles, without the richest variety of expression, and
merely by the force of the concise or the rapid style, or both (for they
are very different), have thus charmed and pierced the heart. To delight
and to persuade requires time and great command of language; and to
leave a sting in the minds of the audience is an effect not to be
expected from an orator who merely pinks, but from him, and him only,
who thrusts in. Another comic poet,[24] speaking of the same orator,
says:
"His mighty words like Jove's own thunder roll; Greece hears, and
trembles to her inmost soul."
But it is not the close and reserved; it is the copious, the majestic,
and the sublime orator, who thunders, who lightens, who, in short, bears
all before him in a confused whirl. There is, undeniably, a just mean in
everything; but he equally misses the mark who falls short of it, as he
who goes beyond it; he who is too limited as he who is too unrestrained.
Hence it is as common a thing to hear our orators condemned for being
too jejune and feeble as too excessive and redundant. One is said to
have exceeded the bounds of his subject, the other not to have reached
them. Both, no doubt, are equally in fault, with this difference,
however, that in the one the fault arises from an abundance, in the
other, from a deficiency; an error, in the former case, which, if it be
not the sign of a more correct, is certainly of a more fertile genius.
When I say this, I would not be understood to approve that everlasting
talker[25] mentioned in Homer, but that other' described in the
following lines:
"Frequent and soft, as falls the winter snow, Thus from his lips the
copious periods flow."
Not but that I extremely admire him,[26] too, of whom the poet says,
"Few were his words, but wonderfully strong."
Yet, if the choice were given me, I should give the preference to that
style resembling winter snow, that is, to the full, uninterrupted, and
diffusive; in short, to that pomp of eloquence which seems all heavenly
and divine. But (it is replied) the harangue of a more moderate length
is most generally admired. It is:--but only by indolent people; and to
fix the standard by their laziness and false delicacy would be simply
ridiculous. Were you to consult persons of this cast, they would tell
you, not only that it is best to say little, but that it is best to say
nothing at all. Thus, my friend, I have laid before you my opinions upon
this subject, and I am willing to change them if not agreeable to yours.
But should you disagree with me, pray let me know clearly your reasons
why. For, though I ought to yield in this case to your more enlightened
judgment, yet, in a point of such consequence, I had rather be convinced
by argument than by authority. So if I don't seem to you very wide of
the mark, a line or two from you in return, intimating your concurrence,
will be sufficient to confirm me in my opinion: on the other hand, if
you should think me mistaken, let me have your objections at full
length. Does it not look rather like bribery, my requiring only a short
letter, if you agree with me; but a very long one if you should be of a
different opinion. Farewell.
XV -- To PATERNUS
As I rely very much upon the soundness of your judgment, so I do upon
the goodness of your eyes: not because I think your discernment very
great (for I don't want to make you conceited), but because I think it
as good as mine: which, it must be confessed, is saying a great deal.
Joking apart, I like the look of the slaves which were purchased for me
on your recommendation very well; all I further care about is, that they
be honest: and for this I must depend upon their characters more than
their countenances. Farewell.
XVI -- To CATILIUS SEVERUS [27]
I AM at present (and have been a considerable time) detained in Rome,
under the most stunning apprehensions. Titus Aristo,[28] whom I have a
singular admiration and affection for, is fallen into a long and
obstinate illness, which troubles me. Virtue, knowledge, and good sense,
shine out with so superior a lustre in this excellent man that learning