et sibi vivi posteris que
suis Po(s) et sub Ascia (posuit)
dedicaverunt.
As we go north epitaphs of this description become much rarer, which seems to indicate that as the influence of the Celtic element, and, perhaps, the Greek Massilia, decreases, there is a decrease also in the ‘ubertas Gallici sermonis’.[929]
We can hardly realize to-day how enormous the power and the extent of rhetoric was. In all parts of the Empire it was the mark of a cultured gentleman. As we have seen, it was the basis of education, the condition of imperial appointments, a tremendous factor in the policy of the emperors. ‘If we lose our eloquence’, said Libanius,[930] ‘what will be left to distinguish us from the barbarians?’ and again, ‘If you know the art of speaking you know the art of commanding.’[931] From Isocrates to Libanius Persuasion (Peitho) cast her spell with unfailing charm, nor was it Gaul alone that was bound by the chains of the tongue. Beyond the Graeco-Roman world the influence went: Sidonius, the conservative, could compliment an Arbogast on his eloquence,[932] and it was the rhetoric of pagan Gaul, as well as the religion of Christian Gaul, that led captive her fierce conquerors. So, too, beyond the pagan world, rhetoric invaded the Church and left its manifold traces on Christian education.
Kaufmann estimates that by the year 450 pagan schools in Gaul were disappearing under the influence of the Church militant.[933] Now it is true that the Church considered it a duty to condemn the rhetoricians, but their system persisted nevertheless through the monasteries up to our own day both in the matter and in method.
The Christian literature of the period shows this clearly. In poetry (except in a few cases like the Ad uxorem, and the De providentia Dei) the fetters of the tradition are still strong, and in trying to force biblical subjects into unsuitable forms, men like Sedulius, Marius Victor, and Paulinus of Nola produce mere lifeless paraphrases; in prose, where there were fewer rules to check naturalness and freshness of thought, the results are much more gratifying. In the schools it is recognized that the rhetorical system is indispensable. Tertullian[934] allows Christian children to attend pagan schools, though he will not permit Christians to teach in them, and Jerome, while he complains that the clergy are too fond of Vergil and the Comedies, is constrained to add ‘in pueris necessitatis est’.[935] The Church did not create a new educational system.
One or two particular cases of the survival of rhetoric may be given. Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia, born in 474 at Arles, illustrates in a typical way the enormous power which rhetoric could exercise over Christians as late as the end of the fifth century. He is passionately in love with the forms and methods of his pagan authors, loves their pomp and glitter,[936] and is always playing a part in the hope of winning applause.[937] He makes rhetoric say: ‘I am she who does things or changes things done. Light can dispel the darkness, however vast, in which the law involves a man, and this light by reading I can give. I am she from whom men await prosecution if guilty and acquittal if innocent ... for my gain the Roman keeps vigil throughout the Empire. Unless I adorn them, office, riches, honours lose their attraction: it is I who rule the rulers.’[938] This is all very similar to what Isocrates had said centuries ago, when he talked of the power and benefits of Persuasion,[939] and the traditional moral note is there just as in Isocrates[940] and in Cicero.[941] Rhetoric, says Ennodius, is the only moulder of public opinion. Her charm is irresistible and universal. (Why mention so obvious a fact?) The opinion she creates is eternal. It is she who makes people believe whatever she wishes about the deeds of the brave, she who can suppress facts with impunity. She is the mother of poetry, jurisprudence, dialectic, arithmetic, and she gives them their value.[942] ‘Grammar’ is recognized as the necessary precedent, the nurse of knowledge and virtue, who produces the sparks that lead to the Ciceronian fire of speech.[943] The idea that rhetorical adornment is specially connected with the school is still current. A correspondent begs him with many prayers that his letter to him should be embellished with the graces of the school (multis enim supplicationibus exegistis ut pagina vobis concinnationis didascalicae fingeretur[944]) and in the Libellus pro Synodo he urges ‘illas didascalici libelli relegamus argutias’.[945]
Later on Ennodius began to have misgivings about the part rhetoric played in his life. ‘Erat orandi fastidium dum perorandi tenebar cupiditate....’[946] He laments his placid satisfaction with his fine speeches, his elation at poetic successes, while he had no ear for the ‘angelorum chori’ owing to the intoxication of applause. ‘Quotiens adclamantium flatibus propter religionem vertex nudatus intumuit....’ But even in his confessions rhetoric is present, and she triumphs at the very time when he speaks of her defeat.
A curious instance of the survival of rhetoric is seen in the invective of Hilary of Poitiers against Constantius.[947] The author has worked up a great deal of feeling, and, to give it the most effective utterance, he lets it flow into the moulds prescribed by tradition. His divisions correspond perfectly to those of the schools. He spares no form of contumely, even at the expense of historical fact.[948] His railing reminds us of Milton’s denunciation of Salmasius:[949] for as late as the seventeenth century Latin retained its reputation as the language of invective. In spite of his preliminary professions of sincerity: ‘cesset itaque maledictorum opinio et mendacii suspicio. Veritatis enim ministros decet vera proferre’, we feel that in following the rules of the game he has proved himself a good player, but not always ‘a servant of truth’.[950]