A Dialogue Concerning Oratory, Or The Causes Of Corrupt Eloquence The Works Of Cornelius Tacitus, Volume 8 (of 8); With An Essay On His Life And Genius, Notes, Supplements

by Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Arthur Murphy (Editor)

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.

Genres: Classics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Ancient

226 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 102

About the author

born perhaps 55
died perhaps 120

From the death of Augustus in 14 Histories and Annals , greatest works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman public official, concern the period to Domitian in 96.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus served as a senator of the empire. The major portions examine the reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those four emperors, who reigned in the year. They span the empire to the years of the first Jewish war in 70. One enormous four-books long lacuna survives in the texts.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus discusses oratory in dialogue format in Dialogus de oratoribus , Germania in De origine et situ Germanorum , and biographical notes about Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his father-in-law, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae ).

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, an author, wrote in the latter part of the silver age of Latin literature.

Reviews

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tacite est un auteur romain de la fin du premier siècle de notre ère, j’ai appris dans la préface qu’il aurait été élève de Quintilien, auteur très fameux pour son « Institution Oratoire ». Tacite est principalement connu pour ses ouvrages historiques critiques et grinçants, relatant les débuts de l’empire et les turpitudes des Césars. Il est aussi l’auteur d’un ouvrage unique décrivant l’Allemagne antique, la Germanie. On lui attribuerait également ce petit dialogue des Orateurs.

Pour la compagnie de romains lettrés présentée dans cette ouvrage, occupés à deviser paisiblement, il s’agit ici d’examiner le métier d’orateur, lequel avait été fort en vogue sous la république, et dont Cicéron avait été la figure emblématique. On sent poindre dans ce texte une grande nostalgie pour cette époque révolue, où tout semblait plus fort et plus beau, et c’est naturellement que se pose la question de comparer les « anciens » (c'est-à-dire pour eux, les hommes d’il y a moins d’un siècle), et les « modernes » (leurs contemporains). Le style a changé, c’est certain, mais s’est il dégradé pour autant ? La controverse est vive ! Et puis quelle idée bien plaisante de considérer déjà comme « anciens » ces hommes qu’auraient pu connaître les plus âgés de leurs contemporains ; témoin ce Breton encore vivant, qui avait participé aux guerres contre l’invasion de son île par Jules César ?

Mais enfin, c’était mieux avant : les orateurs étaient respectés et admirés. Ils apprenaient leur métier en se rendant au forum, et écoutaient avec délice les discours de leurs aînés : toute leur formation se faisait de manière vivante, et ils acquéraient ainsi une habileté étonnante. N’est-ce pas ainsi, comme le raconte Plutarque, que Cicéron lui-même conçut le désir de devenir Orateur, en assistant aux débats, aux plaidoiries, en écoutant les discours, en se flattant d’être lui-même propre à être écouté, et à émouvoir un vaste auditoire ?

Nos romains déplorent par contraste la situation actuelle : au lieu de se former en se frottant au métier, les jeunes fréquentent des écoles, où leur goût et leur capacité se gâte et s’énerve. Les professeurs, obséquieux et complaisants, corrompent les élèves par des flatteries au lieu de les édifier : ces derniers deviennent donc hâbleurs, vains, prétentieux, et ainsi se perd la verve antique. C’est aussi sur les changements politiques qui sont mis en accusation : avec la disparition de la liberté, plus de harangues, plus de discours, plus de politique, plus de belles actions à accomplir grâce à la parole, il ne sert plus à rien de convaincre, si ce n’est pour remporter des procès ou faire des exposés savants.

Pour conclure, nos romains suggèrent finalement qu’il faut s’adapter aux circonstances, au lieu de les accuser : c’est aussi un bien d’avoir mis un terme aux guerres civiles, aux luttes sanglantes entre les factions, et s’il n’est plus possible de gagner des lauriers et une gloire éternelle en se distinguant dans l’action par une verve affûtée, que l’on jouisse au moins des délices de la paix, et que l’on consacre ce loisir aux activités qui lui conviennent.

[AB · Rating 3 out of 5]

Translation read found here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

...the privilege of attacking the most influential men, and by the very glory of such feuds when most of the good speakers did not spare even a Publius Scipio, or a Sulla, or a Cneius Pompeius,

No; the great and famous eloquence of old is the nursling of the licence which fools called freedom; it is the companion of sedition, the stimulant of an unruly people, a stranger to obedience and subjection, a defiant, reckless, presumptuous thing which does not show itself in a well-governed state. What orator have we ever heard of at Sparta or at Crete?

I wont comment much on the first 28 chapters. There is some quite "Roman" ideas on why oratory is better than poetry for public life, which I find amusing but otherwise there isnt anything said that is all that exciting (to me at least).

The great part of this dialogue comes from the discussion on why contemporary orators are inferior to Ancient ones. In this section, some central ideas of Tacitus are really on display. In many ways you can see this as an sparknotes of his more fleshed out ideas of the negative aspects of the imperial period found in the Histories and Annals.
Right off the bat, Tacitus comes out swinging with this dislike of the growing positions of slaves and freedmen in imperial society. They are a negative influence on the freeborn, who are subject to and influenced by the "slavish" nature of the (once)enslaved. But in our day we entrust the infant to a little Greek servant-girl who is attended by one or two, commonly the worst of all the slaves, creatures utterly unfit for any important work. The broader idea of society changing as a result of the pax romana, which this idea of slaves taking over the roles of the inept mother falls under, is carried on as a central focus of my favourite part of this text: the final speech of Maternus.

This speech is by far the most interesting found within the dialogues. While it is not uncommon to see the idea of a loss of freedom resulting from the rise of Augustus and his heirs in Tacitus' works, there is a different spin on things in this speech. Maternus, and presumably Tacitus, do not condemn the peace of the imperial period nor condone the chaos of the late republic. While this is the case, there is a predominate realization that the strife of this period brought with it a surge of talent. The orators were unsuccessful proto-emperors. They used their talents to become the single guiding hand that was needed. When the figures of Pompey and Caesar appeared, they stifled the powers of the orators. As they became the 'one guiding hand' of the republic, they closed off the means of competition. By saying this, Maternus is pretty much assuming that the rule of one individual over the republic was inevitable, the eloquence of the orators being a precursor to the rise of Augustus. The greatness of the orator falls not because of a lack of 'proper' Roman upbringing or education. Instead, it is the very conditions Maternus believes is necessary to make good orators that eventually leads to the end of good orators.

[Evan Leach · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Dialogus is a short work on rhetoric by the historian Tacitus, one of three of his minor works that have survived (the other two being the Agricola and Germania). It takes the form of a debate between three friends. They begin by arguing the relative merits of poetry vs. oratory (i.e., fiction writing vs. composing speeches to use in the law courts). This leads them into a debate of whether the great orators of the past were superior to the orators of the present. Finally, the piece ends with a speech by Maturnus (probably acting as a mouthpiece for the author, at least in my opinion) arguing that the orators of yesteryear were better, because of the political system they lived under and the tumultuous nature of their times:

”[T]he great and famous eloquence of old is the nursling of the licence which fools called freedom; it is the companion of sedition, the stimulant of an unruly people, a stranger to obedience and subjection, a defiant, reckless, presumptuous thing which does not show itself in a well-governed state. What orator have we ever heard of at Sparta or at Crete? A very strict discipline and very strict laws prevailed, tradition says, in both those states. Nor do we know of the existence of eloquence among the Macedonians or Persians, or in any people content with a settled government. There were some orators at Rhodes and a host of them at Athens, but there the people, there any ignorant fellow, anybody, in short, could do anything. So too our own state, while it went astray and wore out its strength in factious strife and discord, with neither peace in the forum, unity in the senate, order in the courts, respect for merit, or seemly behaviour in the magistrates, produced beyond all question a more vigorous eloquence, just as an untilled field yields certain herbage in special plenty. Still the eloquence of the Gracchi was not an equivalent to Rome for having to endure their legislation, and Cicero’s fame as an orator was a poor compensation for the death he died.”

In other words, the stability provided by the Roman Empire brought with it certain costs, including the inability to groom truly great orators, at least according to Maturnus.

This is a pretty quick read (available online at http://forumromanum.org/literature/ta...), and the dialogue format helps make what could otherwise have been a pretty dry essay entertaining. Not as juicy as Tacitus’ historical works, but interesting nonetheless. 3 stars.

[Michelo]

Me lo tuve que leer dos veces porque no me había enterado y es verdad que los oradores son un poco parguelas

[Fölix · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nicht so meins

[Ethan Rogers · Rating 3 out of 5]

To write about oratory in ancient Rome was to write about politics. Since affairs were handled through speech, often public, the orator combined in his person the authority of the journalist, the essayist or public writer, the lawyer, and the statesman. It is worth remembering that this text was composed under a dictatorship (in the broad, not specifically Roman sense) which was then under one hundred years old.

An early speech, as a sort of misdirection, praises the style of the modern orators. They are more artful and engaging than the ancients. However, this is not a stable position. A man of great talent defends poetry on the grounds of its sublimity and because of the danger of oratory. Soon the causes of the decay of eloquence come under discussion.

There is a stereotyped criticism of education (Roman parents have slaves tutor their children, presumably teaching them slavish things). But this is soon followed by the politics. During the reigns of the first Caesars there was a reign of such moral decadence that the persuaders were replaced with flatterers. Once these habits of oratory are corrupted, we are told, they cannot easily be restored under the reign of a good and virtuous prince (which the present government obviously is. No question!).

The dialogue ends with an interesting speech to the effect that great oratory can only arise in a chaotic democracy. Under the government of a prince who wisely resolves all public questions, there is no place for the skillful combat of words. The interlocutors are told that they are blessed and fortunate to live in an age in which the art of great oratory is no longer needed.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not going to lie, ladies and gents, I don't like this module at all - Roman Literary Criticism is perhaps the most deeply confusing selection of texts I have ever encountered in a Classics module - but this text is probably my favourite out of the one's we've read so far (including, Terence's Prologues, Ennius' Fragments, Livius Andronicus' Fragments, Naevius' Fragments, Ars Poetica, Velleius Paterculus' Historiae Romanae, and Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria (Book 10)). It tackles with some really interesting stuff, with some hefty political implications along with it.
The whole 'women being mad mothers is why we have bad orators now' is... crackpot, to say the least.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can understand his desire to get back to nature. Now that I live in a concrete jungle by myself, I increasingly hate that I am surrounded by tall faux concrete and steel boxes. They choke me. Also, I live hundreds of meters above the ground and it feels a little unnatural. I feel at a loss. But nature sucks because it has no internet, no running water, and is very unsanitary.

[Olivia Helen Brennand · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very easily read for my primary source for my first assessed essay for Rhetoric focused on the dialogue form.

Interesting concepts put in an engaging way.
- Not my favourite though.

[hegel tubinga · Rating 3 out of 5]

bravo tacito peccato che poi hai smesso di scrivere bene

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had no idea Tacitus wrote about stuff like this. Yeah, its not actually my favorite thing I've read by the guy because I thought the ethnographic stuff in Germania was most interesting. But this is an interesting tract on its own. It is ostensibly a work expounding the virtues of oratory skill and rhetorical training, itself an interesting choice because I was unaware of how similar Roman society was in this respect to Greek society. But tied in with that is the usual political slant we get with Tacitus, where he critiques the existing despotism of Rome and tells us that the manner of speaking of a country reflects of general social and political condition of that country, and that oratorical skill can only be fully expressed under conditions of of loose social control, and in fact, chaos-- namely in the era of the Republic, particularly when even the Republic was weak and in internal crisis. That was when people were both free to speak, and had inspiring subject matter to speak about. In the orderly, well mannered, and despotic empire, there is nothing to talk about. Yet even as Tacitus mourns for the past in this way, he tells us that there is no point in mourning the past and that the Empire is actually a good thing for the peace which it brings, and it would have been nasty to live back then in such a chaotic period. So the writing itself is rife with this internal tension as well. Interesting little piece.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty interesting. Talks about the decline of literature and writing since the fall of the more free Republic, or worse, the death of Cicero. Change a few names and it feels extremely modern in wisdom of how societies function. Highly recommend.

RIP The Republic.