Письмо CLXXV: Marcus Cornelius Fronto — Marcus Aurelius

I praise the Censor's¹⁸ act, who shut up the gaming nouses because he himself, as he said, when he passed that way could scarce consult his dignity so far as to refrain from dancing to the sound of the castanets or cymbals. Then besides there are many things in that kind of oratory¹⁹ not unlike the genuine thing, if one does not look carefully into it. Sanction granted to wrong, says M. Annaeus; on the other hand Sallust: all right rests with the stronger.

A certain Gallic rhetorician,²⁰ while the Macedonians on Alexander's death from disease were debating²¹ whether they should utterly destroy Babylon also, says, What if you hire lions to do your work? Grandiosely too he²² cries in his peroration, using the same word as Ennius, By you citizens has been wrought, has been wrought a work unsurpassable. It is the Tiber, O Tuscan,²³ the Tiber that thou biddest be penned in: the river Tiber, master and monarch of all circumfluent waters;²⁴ Ennius says: 'Twas wrought: after its flood now | stayed at the spot stood still that stream that is queen of all rivers, | which underneath the Ovilia²⁵ (flows).

There is skill needed to distinguish a patched dress from a sound one. So the safest course is to eschew all such citations. It is easy to slip on the ice.

One edict of yours I remember to have noticed, in which you hazardously wrote what would be even unworthy of some faulty book. The edict begins: That there should flourish on their holdings²⁶ unimpaired youth. What is this, Marcus? What you wish to say is doubtless that you desire to see the Italian towns stocked with a plentiful supply of young men. What is florere doing in the first line and as the first word? What is meant by unimpaired²⁷ youth? What is the object of these inversions and circumlocutions? Other faults of a similar kind are to be found in the same edict. Hark back rather to words that are suitable and appropriate and juicy with their own sap. The itch and the scurf are caught from books of that kind.²⁸ Cleave to the old mintage. Coins of lead and debased metal of every kind are oftener met with in our recent issues than in the archaic ones which are stamped with the names of Perperna or Trebanius²⁹ . . . .. What then? Am I not to prefer for myself a coin of Antoninus or Commodus³⁰ or Pius? Those old words are stained and contaminated and discoloured and spotted, aye, more spotted than a nurse's apron. There is need, therefore, of all your pains to render your language, if possible, current coin; be ever on the look-out for some word, not one coined by you, for that, indeed, is an absurdity, but used by you more elegantly or more aptly or more happily than by others.³¹

Says Sallust: Such reverent regard³² and affection did our ancestors have for the Italian race. This word antiquitas is often used, but nowhere employed in that sense,³³ and therefore is not properly correct. For it is commonly said that what is preferable is antiquius. Thence undoubtedly did Sallust derive his use of antiquitas itself; and, since a word that is less usual is also less clear, he interpreted it by means of the following word, antiquitatis curaeque.

In this way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the mouths of the people words of this kind have hitherto always been in vogue; Accius, Plautus, Sallust very often, even occasionally Cicero, (use them) . . . .³⁴

From Lucius Verus to Fronto

163 A.D.

To my master, greeting.

. . . .³⁵

For I confess, what is the fact, that only one thing could happen to cause any considerable set-back in my love for you, and that is, if you were to neglect eloquence. Yet indeed I would rather you neglected it than cultivated it in the wrong way. For as to that hybrid eloquence of the catachanna² type, grafted partly with Cato's pine-nuts,'³ partly with the soft and hectic plums of Seneca, it ought in my judgment to be plucked up by the roots, nay, to use a Plautine expression, by the roots of the roots. I am aware that he is a man who abounds in thoughts, aye bubbles over with them; but I see his thoughts go trot-trot, nowhere keep on their course under the spur at a free gallop, nowhere shew fight, nowhere aim at sublimity: like Laberius, he fashions wit-bolts, or rather wit-flashes, rather than wit-sayings.

Do you then suppose that you could find weightier thoughts and on the same subject in your Annaeus than in Sergius? But (in Sergius)⁴ not so rhythmical: I grant it; nor so sprightly: it is so; nor with such a ring: I do not deny it. But what, if the same meal be set before two persons, and the one take up the olives set on the table with his fingers, carry them to his open mouth, let them come between his teeth for mastication in the decent and proper manner, while the other throw his olives into the air, catch them in his mouth, and shew them when caught, like a juggler his pebbles, with the tips of his lips. Schoolboys of course would clap the feat and the guests be amused, but the one will have eaten his dinner decently, the other juggled with his lips.

You will say, there are certain things in his books cleverly expressed, some also with dignity. Yes, even little silver coins are sometimes found in sewers; are we on that account to contract for the cleaning of sewers?⁵

The first and most objectionable defect in that style of speech is the repetition of the same thought under one dress and another, times without number. As actors, when they dance clad in mantles, with one and the same mantle represent a swan's tail, the tresses of Venus, a Fury's scourge, so these writers make up the same thought in a thousand ways, flourish it, alter it, disguise it, with the same lappet dance diverse dances, rub up one and the same thought oftener than girls their perfumed amber.

Has something to be said about fortune? You will find there the whole gallery of Fortunes, Fortunes of Antium, of Praeneste, Fortunes Regardant,⁶ Fortunes too of baths, all Fortunes with wings, with wheels, with rudders.

One prelude of a poem⁷ I will quote by way of example from a poet of the same time and of the same name, an Annaeus like the other. In the first seven verses at the beginning of his poem he has done nothing but paraphrase the words Wars worse than civil. Count up the phrases in which he rings the changes on this—and sanction granted to wrong: phrase number one; turning their conquering swords, in their own heart's blood to imbrue them: here we have a second; kin against kin embattled: that will be a third; guilt that was shared by all: he tells off his fourth; and standards set against standards: he piles up a fifth to boot; eagles with eagles snatched: here's the sixth! why, this is a labour of Hercules; and javelins poised against javelins: a seventh! a bull's hide from the shield of Ajax. Wilt never be done, Annaeus? Or if no end or limit is ever to be kept, why not add clarions also alike? And you might go on, and the well-known blare of the bugles. Yes, and follow up with cuirasses and helmets and belts and all the paraphernalia of a soldier.

Apollonius, however—for Homer's openings are not equally skilful—Apollonius, I say, who wrote the Argonautica, describes five quite distinct facts explicitly in five lines: κλέα φωτῶν,⁸ the heroes who sailed; οἶ Πόντοιο κατὰ στόμα, the route by which they sailed; βασιλῆος ἐφημοσύνῃ Πελίαο, at whose hest they sailed; χρυσεῖον μετὰ κῶας, on what quest they sailed; ἐύζυγον ἤλασαν Ἀργώ, the ship on which they were carried.

These writers, as well rhetoricians as poets, do just what harpers are wont to do, who dwell with many varied intonations on some single vowel from Ino or from Aedon.⁹

What shall I say of meanness and slovenliness in words? What of words rhythmically arranged and effeminately fluent? . . . . . . . . . . . . and from dislike regard with a critical eye this form of preciosity. In public speaking you have need to use the shield of Achilles, not wave a little targe or feint with the sham lances of the stage. Water gushes more daintily from little pipes than from the clouds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .¹⁰ You spoke of harmonizing eyes.¹¹ What applause, redoubled! for either word had been obviously sought after and found: and when you had found the word, you knew admirably how to use it with caution. Those who stammer¹² are said to have an impediment in their speech, and the contrary is the case with a speech free and unimpeded: much better clearly was your tongue-untied. And I think you have gone to that same passage for an expression "drawn from the contrary," that, since the utterance of stammerers is imperfect, it was possible to speak of a perfect utterance. That you should have been unaware of this . . . .¹³ when you said harmonizing eyes . . . .¹⁴ this passage is found fault with . . . . (because the word is of a varied) meaning: Theodorus calls it the "method from synonyms."¹⁵ For the Greeks express to agree, to fit, to suit, to harmonize by the term ἡρμόσθαι (to be adapted).

I do not doubt that you passed in review other words also. For as in him who squints the eyes are not of a match, you could have called them equal or unequal, these accordant, those discordant; but harmonizing was much better.

Perhaps you will say what is there in my speeches new-fangled, what artificial, what obscure, what patched with purple, what inflated or corrupt? Nothing as yet;¹⁶ but I fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .¹⁷