Lib. vii. epig. 8.
[] Enough, perhaps, has been already said in the notes, concerning the teachers of rhetoric; but it will not be useless to cite one passage more from Petronius, who in literature, as well as convivial pleasure, may be allowed to be arbiter elegantiarum. The rhetoricians, he says, came originally from Asia; they were, however, neither known to Pindar, and the nine lyric poets, nor to Plato, or Demosthenes. They arrived at Athens in evil hour, and imported with them that enormous frothy loquacity, which at once, like a pestilence, blasted all the powers of genius, and established the rules of corrupt eloquence. Nondum umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat, cum Pindarus novemque lyrici Homericis versibus canere non timuerunt. Certe neque Platona, neque Demosthenem, ad hoc genus exercitationis accessisse video. Nuper ventosa isthæc et enormis loquacitas Athenas ex Asia commigravit, animosque juvenum ad magna surgentes veluti pestilenti quodam sidere afflavit; simulque corruptæ eloquentiæ regula stetit et obtinuit. Petron. Satyricon, s. 2.
Section 5.
[a] When the public taste was vitiated, and to elevate and surprise, as Bayes says, was the new way of writing, Seneca is, with good reason, ranked in the class of ingenious, but affected authors. Menage says, if all the books in the world were in the fire, there is not one, whom he would so eagerly snatch from the flames as Plutarch. That author never tires him; he reads him often, and always finds new beauties. He cannot say the same of Seneca; not but there are admirable passages in his works, but when brought to the test they lose their apparent beauty by a close examination. Seneca serves to be quoted in the warmth of conversation, but is not of equal value in the closet. Whatever be the subject, he wishes to shine, and, by consequence, his thoughts are too refined, and often false. Menagiana, tom. ii. p. 1.
Section 6.
[a] This charge against Seneca is by no means new. Quintilian was his contemporary; he saw and heard the man, and, in less than twenty years after his death, pronounced judgement against him. In the conclusion of the first chapter of his tenth book, after having given an account of the Greek and Roman authors, he says, he reserved Seneca for the last place, because, having always endeavoured to counteract the influence of a bad taste, he was supposed to be influenced by motives of personal enmity. But the case was otherwise. He saw that Seneca was the favourite of the times, and, to check the torrent that threatened the ruin of all true eloquence, he exerted his best efforts to diffuse a sounder judgement. He did not wish that Seneca should be laid aside: but he could not in silence see him preferred to the writers of the Augustan age, whom that writer endeavoured to depreciate, conscious that, having chosen a different style, he could not hope to please the taste of those who were charmed with the authors of a former day. But Seneca was still in fashion; his partisans continued to admire, though it cannot be said that they imitated him. He fell short of the ancients, and they were still more beneath their model. Since they were content to copy, it were to be wished that they had been able to vie with him. He pleased by his defects, and the herd of imitators chose the worst. They acquired a vicious manner, and flattered themselves that they resembled their master. But the truth is, they disgraced him. Seneca, it must be allowed, had many great and excellent qualities; a lively imagination, vast erudition, and extensive knowledge. He frequently employed others to make researches for him, and was often deceived. He embraced all subjects; in his philosophy, not always profound, but a keen censor of the manners, and on moral subjects truly admirable. He has brilliant passages, and beautiful sentiments; but the expression is in a false taste, the more dangerous, as he abounds with delightful vices. You would have wished that he had written with his own imagination, and the judgement of others. To sum up his character; had he known how to rate little things, had he been above the petty ambition of always shining, had he not been fond of himself, had he not weakened his force by minute and dazzling sentences, he would have gained, not the admiration of boys, but the suffrage of the judicious. At present he may be read with safety by those who have made acquaintance with better models. His works afford the fairest opportunity of distinguishing the beauties of fine writing from their opposite vices. He has much to be approved, and even admired: but a just selection is necessary, and it is to be regretted that he did not choose for himself. Such was the judgement of Quintilian: the learned reader will, perhaps, be glad to have the whole passage in the author's words, rather than be referred to another book. Ex industriâ Senecam, in omni genere eloquentiæ versatum, distuli, propter vulgatam falso de me opinionem, quâ damnare eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. Quod, accidit mihi, dum corruptum, et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora judicia contendo. Tum autem solus hic fere in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quem non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus præferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum, diversi sibi conscius generis, placere se in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent, diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis, quàm imitabantur; tantumque ab illo defluebant, quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum, pares, aut saltem proximos, illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia, et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quæ poterat. Deinde cum se jactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cujus et multæ alioqui et magnæ virtutes fuerunt; ingenium facile et copiosum; plurimum studii; et multarum rerum cognitio, in quâ tamen aliquando ab iis, quibus inquirenda quædam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractavit etiam omnem ferè studiorum materiam; In philosophiâ parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator. Multa in eo claræque sententiæ; multa etiam morum gratiâ legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis. Velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno judicio. Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset; si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quàm puerorum amore comprobaretur. Verùm sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest utrimque judicium. Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curæ sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1. From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand corrupter of eloquence. The charge is, therefore, renewed in this Dialogue, with strict propriety. Rollin, who had nourished his mind with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his own productions. In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance, traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette: Barbâ et comâ nitidos, de capsulâ totos; he adds, that such affected finery is not the true ornament of a man. Non est ornamentum virile, concinnitas. And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was sitting to himself for the picture. He aimed for ever at something new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed. He preferred wit to truth and dignified simplicity. The marvellous was with him better than the natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the approbation of sober judgement. His talents placed him at the head of the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the corruption of taste and eloquence. See Rollin's Belles Lettres, vol. i. sur le Gout. Another eminent critic, L'ABBE GEDOYN, who has given an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of eloquence. He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the matter up much higher. He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the false, but seducing charms of that celebrated poet. Ovid was, undoubtedly, the greatest wit of his time; but his wit knew no bounds. His fault was, exuberance. Nescivit quod bene cessit relinquere, says Seneca, who had himself the same defect. Whatever is Ovid's subject, the redundance of a copious fancy still appears. Does he bewail his own misfortunes; he seems to think, that, unless he is witty, he cannot be an object of compassion. Does he write letters to and from disappointed lovers; the greatest part flows from fancy, and little from the heart. He gives us the brilliant for the pathetic. With these faults, Ovid had such enchanting graces, that his style and manner infected every branch of literature. The tribe of imitators had not the genius of their master; but being determined to shine in spite of nature, they ruined all true taste and eloquence. This is the natural progress of imitation, and Seneca was well aware of it. He tells us that the faults and blemishes of a corrupt style are ever introduced by some superior genius, who has risen to eminence in bad writing; his admirers imitate a vicious manner, and thus a false taste goes round from one to another. Hæc vitia unus aliquis inducit, sub quo tunc eloquentia est: cæteri imitantur; et alter alteri tradunt. Epist. 114. Seneca, however, did not know that he was describing himself. Tacitus says he had a genius suited to the taste of the age. Ingenium amœnum et temporis ejus auribus accommodatum. He adopted the faults of Ovid, and was able to propagate them. For these reasons, the Abbé Gedoyn is of opinion, that Ovid began the mischief, and Seneca laid the axe to the root of the tree. It is certain, that, during the remaining period of the empire, true eloquence never revived.
Section 7.
[a] Historians have concurred in taxing Vespasian with avarice, in some instances, mean and sordid; but they agree, at the same time, that the use which he made of his accumulated riches, by encouraging the arts, and extending liberal rewards to men of genius, is a sufficient apology for his love of money.
[] Titus, it is needless to say, was the friend of virtue and of every liberal art. Even that monster Domitian was versed in polite learning, and by fits and starts capable of intense application: but we read in Tacitus, that his studies and his pretended love of poetry served as a cloak to hide his real character. See History, b. iv. s. 86.
[c] Pliny the younger describes the young men of his time rushing forward into the forum without knowledge or decency. He was told, he says, by persons advanced in years, that, according to ancient usage, no young man, even of the first distinction, was allowed to appear at the bar, unless he was introduced by one of consular dignity. But, in his time, all fences of respect and decency were thrown down. Young men scorned to be introduced; they forced their way, and took possession of the forum without any kind of recommendation. At hercule ante memoriam meam (majores natu ita solent dicere), ne nobilissimis quidem adolescentibus locus erat, nisi aliquo consulari producente; tantâ veneratione pulcherrimum opus celebrabatur. Nunc refractis pudoris et reverentiæ claustris, omnia patent omnibus. Nec inducuntur, sed irrumpunt. Plin. lib. ii. epist. 14.