Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924027221443 
 
_.. Cornell University Library 
 
 PN 4103.E6S 
 
 Ciceronianus; 
 
 3 1924 027 221 443 
 
CICERONIANUS 
 
 OR 
 
 A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 
 
 BY 
 
 DESIDERIUS ERASMUS 
 
 OF ROTTERDAM 
 
 Translated by IZORA SCOTT, M. A. 
 With an Introduction by PAUL MONROE, Ph. D. 
 
 Published by 
 
 TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 
 1908 
 
COPYRIGHT 1908 
 
 BY 
 
 TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 PRESS OF 
 
 BRANDOW PRINTING CO., 
 
 ALBANY, N. Y. 
 
Editor's Introduction 
 
 A few words concerning the setting and the educational sig- 
 nificance of this treatise are desirable by way of introduction. 
 The Dialogus Ciceronianus (1528) is the one important tech- 
 nical educational treatise of Erasmus, that has never appeared 
 in an English form. Even in the original, it has had few reprints 
 and none of these are of recent date. His De Ratione Studii, 
 and the treatise De Pueris Statim ac Liberaliter Instituendis are 
 given in English by Professor Woodward in his Erasmus Con- 
 cerning Education;^ the Colloquies have appeared in several 
 forms, most completely in the Bailey edition;^ his letters, which 
 contain much discussion of direct educational value, are ade- 
 quately represented in the recent Nichols edition;* but the 
 Dialogus Ciceronianus, his most extensive treatise on an educa- 
 tional subject as it demanded attention in his own day, has not 
 been deemed of sufficient interest to the student of education to 
 justify a translation. 
 
 In the broad significance of the term, almost all of the works 
 of Erasmus are~e3tiCatiuiralT""""Ai> I*fmessdr'5aiHsEmT5*TtaTraTfe97^ 
 "Very great man 'of letters as he was, and almost wholly liter- 
 ary as were his interests, those interests were suspiciously directed 
 towards the applied rather than the pure aspects of literature — 
 were, in short, per se scientific rather than literary proper." This 
 suspicious practical interest constitutes the characteristic which 
 gives his writings educational value. HisjiomiH'ant-int'eFesfe.m 
 scholar ly wo rk was to remov£j|ggorance_of Jjtgiatur£-and -of life 
 in the past, and to furnish a pr oper b asis for the study of these 
 by the editing of numerous classical texts;. to establish proper 
 standards of l ife's v ^lue and of conducFthrough his safirical and 
 I controversial writings ; and to furnish a proper basis for formal 
 ^ educa t ional processes through adequate linguistic aids. In fol- 
 lowing out the first of these motives he issued his critical editions 
 
 'Cambridge University Press, 1904. 
 
 ^The ColloQutes of Erasmus. Nathan Bailey, 1733, with various later issues. 
 ^The Epistles of Erasmus from His Earliest Letters to His Fifty-first Year, Translated by 
 F. M. Nichols, London, Vol. i, 1901; Vol. 1904. 
 *Saintsbury. History of Lverary Criticism, Vol. 3, p. 10. 
 
6 Editor's Introduction 
 
 of Terence, Seneca, Cicero, Suetonius, Plautus, etc., and above 
 all, his editions of the various church Fathers, notably Jerome. 
 His critical editions of the New Testament, both in Greek and 
 in Latin, had the same general design. In his efforts to remove 
 the ignorance and improve the moral customs of his generation, 
 he wrote the Colloquies, The Adages, and the Praise of Folly. 
 But satire, while an efificient weapon for the destruction of moral 
 evils, of prejudices founded on ignorance, of provincialism and 
 of bigotry, is not an adequate or even a safe instrument in the 
 education of youth. While Erasmus gave comparatively little 
 attention to the problems of the school-room or of private in- 
 struction, yet many of his colloquies and letters relate to this 
 field of activity; the Adages as well as selections from the Col- 
 loquies served as texts, and he gave some assistance in the prepa- 
 ration of grammatical and rhetorical aids to this end. 
 
 The interest of the student of education is necessarily focused 
 on this latter phase of the subject, — namely, on the problems 
 of instruction, such as the choice of material, the methods of 
 'eaching^nd of study, the organization of schools or of the in- 
 struction process, the forms of discipline and of control and the 
 immediate aims and purposes of instruction and of school work. 
 These and similar technical problems are considered in the trea- 
 tise De Ratione Studii and De Pueris Statim ac Liberaliter Insti- 
 tuendis, in various uses of the Colloquies and Letters, in his De 
 Conscribendis Epistolis and in a portion of the Christiani Matri- 
 monii Institutio. All these educational discussions are concerned 
 with the problems of the new humanistic education as opposed 
 to the traditional education of the schools under ecclesiastical 
 influence. Even where the traditional conception of the middle 
 school — the Latin grammar school — was modified and the classi- 
 cal materials of study accepted, the spirit of the school, the 
 methods of control, and methods of study, the treatment of pupil 
 by teacher and of teacher by society remained much the same 
 and needed to be reformed. The elaboration of suitable methods 
 of linguistic and literary study was the work of some generations 
 and, though much had already been done, Erasmus also con- 
 tributed much. 
 
 Professor Woodward's scholarly discussion" of these and simi- 
 lar topics leaves little to be desired by the student of the history 
 
 'Woodward. Erasmus Concerning Educaticn; Cambridge University Press, 1904. 
 
Editor's Introduction 7 
 
 of education who must draw his introductory knowledge of the 
 subject through an English source. With this discussion avail- 
 able, any elaborate treatment of Erasmus' ideas concerning edu- 
 cation and school work is unnecessary at this time. But the 
 other aspect of Erasmus' work, his conflict against the obscurant- 
 ists of his own school of thought, has not been sufficiently em- 
 phasized; nor is the material available to our students for the 
 consideration of this phase of the educational situation of the 
 period when the humanistic ideals were being reduced to school- 
 room procedure. 
 
 New ideas and standards once established, remained long in 
 vogue. In fact the education of the 15th and i6th centuries 
 erected much of the structure that the pedagogue continued to 
 inhabit until well into the 19th century. Slight additions were 
 made to enlarge the structure, but a structure upon an .entirely new 
 design awaited the 19th century. Now it is because the above- 
 mentioned educational writings of Erasmus dealt with this struc- 
 ture that stood so long, — and dealt with it in the making, — that 
 a general interest in them has been preserved, that they have been 
 put into English and that they have been treated by the technical 
 student of education. 
 
 But the nature of the Dialogue on Ciceronianis.m is whoUy 
 diif efenf and it appeals to a different interest, as it also-illustrates 
 another phase of education during the 15th and i6th centuries. 
 Erasmus waged a two-fold battle in the interest of rational edu- 
 cational ideas and practices ; one against the obscurantists of the 
 traditional type, the scholastic and orthodox ecclesiastical edu- 
 cators. The other was against the extremists of his own party. 
 The conception of education held by these latter was no less 
 narrow and little less repulsive than the old, their method of 
 school work was little less efficient and under them the 
 school was no less inadequate to the performance of its 
 proper social function than was the case under the traditional 
 usages. This bitter conflict, however, was of an ephemeral char- 
 acter. In time any system of school practices tends to degenerate 
 into formalism and to lose vital contact with the underlying 
 principles, but the danger to a broad reformatory system from the 
 extremists among its own devotees is not apt to be a vital one 
 during the period of its establishment, nor is the discussion 
 around the quantitative "interpretation of such principles apt to 
 
8 Editor's Introduction 
 
 be of such permanent value as the quaHtative discussions bringing 
 those principles into relief against those absolutely contradictory. 
 Knowledge of such a discussion may be essential to an un- 
 derstanding of the educational situation at that time but not of 
 much practical and immediate value to the practitioner under the 
 system when once established. For this reason the Dialogue on 
 
 f'Ciceronianism has received little attention; and for the reason 
 that it throws bright light upon the educational situation in the 
 time of Erasmus, it H p.serves stiiHy. 
 
 The importance of the mastery of linguistic form had been 
 so exaggerated by many of the humanistic edu cators that C icero 
 had come to exercis^,'am-a«thority-4n.Jijejnew_schQQljn that in 
 many instances was no less tyrannous, no less harmful and no less 
 misrepresentative of the educational principles presumably in- 
 volved than did Aristotle in the old. Many humanists had come 
 to look upon Cicero as the exclusive model for all Latin compo- 
 sition. Though their influence was not yet so dominant that they 
 could control the schools, it was powerful enough to affect and 
 profoundly influence the views of many of the lesser humanists 
 and so of many school men. Such Ciceronians would use only 
 the words and constructions found in the writings of their master 
 and would use any circumlocution to accomplish this end. The 
 effect upon the schools and the humanistic world in general was 
 especially pernicious in two respects: there was an elimination 
 of Christian authors from the course of study and a distinct dis- 
 paragement of Greek. To Erasmus, style was subordinate to the 
 K ends to be accomplished ; to the Ciceronian, style was the ultimate 
 \ goal. To such men much of Erasmus' writing was crude if not 
 ' barbarous. Many, no doubt, did surpass him in polish or per- 
 fection of style, but none in effectiveness in accomplishing the 
 common aims of the humanists, — the removal of ignorance and 
 prejudice and the freeing of individual judgment from the tram- . 
 mels of arbitrary authority. That some able classical scholars 
 should seek to impose a new type of authority aroused his scorn, 
 even though that authority should be a humanistic one, — Cicero 
 himself. Such views represented to Erasmus an utter per^£sion ^ 
 of the humanistic spirit. 
 
 But an objection to this servile and pedantic imitation of 
 Cicero that was of greater weight to Erasmus than the linguistic, 
 literary and educational one was the moral and religious effect 
 
Editor's Introduction 9 
 
 of such misglacgd-devotion. The extreme classicists were forced 
 to avoid the discussion of Christian theories or to employ in such 
 discussions titles and terms borrowed from pagan mythology- 
 and pagan civilization. Thus some Italians were guilty of using 
 the term Jupiter Maximus for God the Father, Apollo for Jesus 
 Christ, divi for saints. Cardinal Bembo had treated pagan themes 
 as frankly as the ancients themselves. He warned Sadoleto to 
 beware lest his style be corrupted by reading the El'istles of St. 
 Paul. Against such an exaggeration of the value of the classics 
 Erasmus even defends the language of the Thomasts and Scot- 
 ists, in that their style at least conformed to their subject-matter. 
 The entire passage in the dialogue devoted to the discussion of 
 the effect of extreme devotion to classicism on religion is of 
 peculiar interest. Erasmus argues that were Cicero now li\ ing 
 and a Christian, he would use Christian terms, quote from the 
 scriptures as he does from eariier Latin authors, and that he would 
 follow as the fundamental principle of style, the fitting of style 
 to the thought. He urges further that this undue evaluation of 
 Ciceronian style is a large factor in perverting our taste and our 
 /Imderstanding ; that many come to take more pride in being a 
 ^piceronian than in being a Christian. This was but one aspect 
 of a minor phenomenon peculiar to the renaissance, the reveraio n 
 to paganism. Erasmus did not hesitat e to call it so. 
 
 tven if this aberration was not quite so extreme as it became 
 in Italy, the free discussion of religious questions was greatly 
 hampered by a strict adherence to the language of the purists. 
 While Erasmus was interested in improving ^he_ vulgar Latin, 
 and replacing the scholastic terminology with a more classical 
 form, he was even more interested in improving the manners 
 and morals of his times by a clearer understanding of Christian 
 principles and doctrines as well "as^DV a knowledge ofthe best 
 of customs of the ancient classical world. Among these posses- 
 sions of the Roman civilization to be coveted and striven for 
 were universal peace, toleration of religious practice, freedom of 
 individual opinion in religious beliefs and other matters of opin- 
 ion, a unive rsal la nguage, a free interchange of opinion through- 
 out the whole of Europe, the cultivation of literary taste and 
 ability through a broad choice of authors of both Greek and Latin 
 literature, and the fostering of schools for general social ends. 
 Now the extreme classical view furthered the attainment of none 
 
lo Editor's Introduction 
 
 of these ; on the contrary it produced discord, limited the freedom 
 of the individual, failed to use the classical literature as an educa- 
 tional means for the development of personality, stifled individu- 
 ality, made the work of the school mechanical, and above all en- 
 tirely overlooked the influence of Christianity as the chief factor 
 in the solution of the grave social problems, and neglected the 
 great need for a better understanding of biblical and patristic 
 writings as a basis for religious and moral reform. 
 
 The Di alog ue, however, grew immediately out of a personal 
 situation, as did most of the controversial writings of Erasmus 
 and of his contemporaries, however broad the significance and 
 influence of the discussion. Erasmus had been the object 
 of many bitter attacks on the part of various Italian and 
 French humanists. Actuated in part no doubt by jealousy of his 
 great reputation, envious that an uncouth German or at least a 
 barbarous Northerner should have so great public acclaim, some 
 of these attacked him in the most vulnerable place, — the sensi- 
 tiveness of a scholar for his reputation for scholarship. In those 
 days, when scholarship frequently formed a suflicient motive for 
 a most laborious life and when its rewards in public esteem were 
 second to no other, such an attack was most apt to be felt and 
 most apt to be resented. 
 
 Erasmus had successfully withstood the various charges of 
 heresy, — at least had avoided conviction of heresy though con- 
 stantly persecuted by the monks. It is true that the Colloquies 
 had appeared comparatively recently (1519), and had aroused 
 widespread and bitter opposition within the church. The book 
 was condemned by the Sorbonne, prohibited in France, and in 
 fact was interdicted by the papacy to all Christendom. Despite 
 the opposition, the second edition (1522) sold over 26,000 copies, 
 and more than seventy-three editions appeared during the author's 
 lifetime with more than 200 editions since. While this work 
 became a weapon of tremendous power in the destruction of the 
 abuses of the old church, it did not escape the opposition of the 
 reformers, especially of Luther, for it was in fact a dangerous 
 means of education of the youth. 
 
 But recently Erasmus had suffi^a nitly alienated the Luthera ns 
 by his treatise On the Freedom of the Will (1Q24), so that he 
 could not now be attacked on thereligious side with as direct 
 results. This de Libero ArUtrio had been called forth by Luth- 
 
Editor's Introduction ii 
 
 er's extreme emphasis on the Augustinian doctrine of salvation 
 through God's grace, the total unworthiness of man and his utter 
 inability to keep God's law, in favor of the church's long estab- 
 Ished doctrines, though not necessarily of its practices, concern- 
 ing the efficacy of works. The work drew a heated reply from 
 Luther (Hyperaspistes, 1526). Despite the eflforts of Melanch- 
 thon and other mutual friends, the outcome of the controversy 
 was that Erasmus, who had once been Luther's " dearest brother " 
 and " most honored of men " became "that venomous viper 
 Erasmus of Rotterdam, the most inflated soul in all the world." 
 Erasmus, in somewhat more temperate phrase, accused Luther 
 of ignorance, impudence, blasphemy and even untruthfulness. 
 His final judgment was that ultimately Luther would be held 
 in greater execration than any other man, while Luther spoke 
 of Erasmus " as the worst enemy that Christ has had for a 
 thousand years." 
 
 When the conflict began a former colleague or school-fellow 
 was on the papal throne as Adrian VI (1521-23) and Erasmus 
 hoped for much from him, both in the way of personal favor 
 and of successful dealing with the bitter religious controversy. 
 Ever a lover of peace and a hater of strife, Erasmus recommended 
 a liberal treatment of the " heretics," the abandonment of per- 
 secution and retaliation, and a reunion on the basis of a reform 
 in morals. But the pope demanded, as an evidence of good 
 faith, that Erasmus should use his influence and his pen. The 
 mild-mannered beginnings of an attempt to conciliate shortly led 
 to vituperative controversy, and his early interest in the efforts 
 of the reformers was entirely lost. For a long time Erasmus 
 had been growing out of sympathy with their aims as he always 
 had been with the Lutheran manner if not the Lutheran methods. 
 His sympathy with the humanistic aspirations of the papacy were 
 of long standing. Erasmus' association with the earlier !Medi- 
 cfiean representative on the papal throne, Leo X (1513-21) had 
 been friendly and enjoyable, though all that he had hoped from 
 such an enlightened rule of the church did not eventuate. Previous 
 to this time, during his visit to Italy (1506- 1509) the Italians 
 and especially the churchmen had shown him great honor. 
 Bologna had given him a degree ; at Venice he had lived with 
 Aldo ; and everywhere the powerful churchmen, now the patrons 
 
12 Editor's Introduction 
 
 of learning, showed him great honor. Prominent churchmen 
 tried to induce him to make Rome his permanent abode. 
 
 His sympathies were now definitely with the old church and 
 there remained. Erasmus was now an old man, — ^he was just 
 under three score years at the beginning of his personal contro- 
 versy with Luther and was sixty-two when he wrote the Cicero- 
 nianus. His departure the following year from Basel where he 
 had for so long found his happiest residence, but now made 
 untenable to him because of the progress of protestantism and 
 the consequent violent destruction of much which he held valuable 
 if not sacred, is but another evidence of the revulsion of his 
 feeling against the protestants. Freiburg, where he now -took up 
 his residence, was an episcopal stronghold of orthodoxy and at 
 that time within the Austrian dominion. The next six years, the 
 last few but one of his life, were spent in peace and for the most 
 part in the preparation of religious works, of a devotional rather 
 than of a controversial character. 
 
 But it is the literary controversy which centered around 
 the Dialogus Ciceronianus with which we are concerned, though 
 the occasion for that controversy is partially explained by his 
 recent religious writings and the ecclesiastical situation. For 
 it is from those whom he might expect to be more friendly be- 
 cause of religious and intellectual sympathies, that much of this 
 criticism came. 
 
 Aluch of this criticism of lack of scholarship came from Italy 
 where the two papal secretaries Bembo (1470-1547) and Sado- 
 leto (1477-1547) were~the leading humanists and the former, at 
 least, the representative xj^the extreme Ciceronian views. Italian 
 opponents were now unable to make capital of their ecclesiastical 
 position to bring Erasmus into disrepute through religious perse- 
 cution, and in truth Sadoleto was little less liberal than Erasmus, 
 or at least was temperamentally similar. In critical scholarship, 
 the two Italians mentioned and other humanists also, notably the 
 Frenchman Budaeus, stood higher in the estimation of his own 
 and of subsequent times. Naturally such men resented the popu- 
 lar acclaim given to Erasmus, his much greater success as a 
 writer and the much greater influence of his scholarship. While 
 these men were not the authors of the scurrilous charges, Eras- 
 mus considered them indirectly responsible for some of them, 
 as he complained to Sadoleto that they were permitted to emanate 
 
Editor's Introduction 13 
 
 from Rome. Among other things he was charged with stealing 
 some of his translations ; his emendations were said to be guesses ; 
 his annotations a series of blunders. His name was* written 
 Er-rasmus to indicate the frequent errors which he made. 
 
 Erasmus had no good grounds for complaint that his enemies 
 should use the same controversial weapons which he did so 
 effectively and so constantly; though satire is no argument and 
 ridicule is but a poor weapon of defense. With the very general 
 alienation of protestant sympathies, it seems odd that Erasmus 
 should deliberately stir up the opposition of those influential at 
 Rome just at the time that he might expect the favor of their 
 sympathetic influence. But the fundamental ground of the criti- 
 cism was the same in both cases. Throughout his life Erasmus 
 had been consistent in this one thing: he had rejected favors, 
 patronage and positions, — ecclesiastical, scholastic and politi- 
 c^^l, — which would limit the freedom of personal action, the op- 
 portunity of devotion to study and to literary work, or of 
 expression of opinion. It is often suggested that his attack on 
 Luther in the defense of the freedom of the will was a charac- 
 teristic act of timidity on Erasmus' part; that, urged by his 
 friends at the papal court to attack Luther he did so on a tech- 
 nical scholastic and theological point of such subordinate interest 
 that it would arouse little interest, though it would be a public 
 repudiation of the reformation leader, now that it was evident 
 that reconciliation was no longer possible. But the point chosen 
 for attack was exactly the one where Erasmus would differ 
 fundamentally from Luther. It was this tendency of the reformer 
 to elaborate a new theology, and to change the basis of disagree- 
 ment from a moral and practical one to a scholastic and theo- 
 retic one that alienated so many of the humanists, as later it 
 was the elaboration of the Calvinistic theology that drove so 
 many of the French humanists back to the Catholic fold. It was 
 this same tendency to erect a new authority and to limit the 
 freedom of individual opinion so hardly won, that definitely 
 determined Erasmus to part company with his Lutheran co- 
 workers. Precisely the same general views now prompted him 
 to take up combat against those who threatened the hardly-won 
 freedom of personal development and expression in the educa- 
 tional, intellectual and literary aspects of life. Even in his old 
 age he dared enter the double conflict. 
 
V 
 
 14 Editor's Introduction 
 
 It is not clearly demonstrated that the Ciceronianus was directed 
 towards any particular individual. It has been thought by many 
 that Bembo, the former papal secretary, was the original of 
 Nosoponus. But if so, his correspondence with Erasmus does 
 not show it, as the interchanged letters are friendly after this 
 date as they were before. The Dialogue itself mentions Longolius 
 as the only north European worthy of the title. It was un- 
 doubtedly the general pedantic tendency of the extremists as well 
 as personal criticism extending over many years together with 
 some particular experiences such as those cited in the Dialogue 
 Itself that occasioned its publication. 
 
 Later Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484-1538) and Etienne Dolet 
 ( 1 509-1 546), French scholars, entered the arena against Eras- 
 mus, chiefly on the grounds of his fancied slight to GugUelmus 
 Budaeus — the most noted of French classical scholars. As 
 Froude remarks about the attacks on Erasmus inspired by the 
 Lutheran controversy over the "Freedom of the Will," so again 
 in this controversy "the mud volcanoes of the day burst into 
 furious eruption." 
 
 "^ The Dialogue was Erasmus' one great contribution to literary 
 criticism* and his pedagogical confession of faith, though given 
 in no didactic form. There are two main tenets in the faith of 
 the Ciceronians as set forth in the Dialogue, neither of which 
 Erasmus will allow. < The firs t of these was that there was an 
 [absolute standard in the use of language, and that this perfection 
 \pf style was attained by Cicero. This belief was the product 
 of the later Renaissance when grammatical study had made con- 
 siderable progress and numerous treatises on style had appeared 
 and- were widely read. The most compreh cnoivc objpot ion which 
 Erasmus, and numerous humanists who agreed with him, had 
 against this was that it made of T jitin a " Hpad " langii agf^ and\, 
 not one to be used as a medium of communication covering all) 
 intellectual affairs. It was this latter view which had been held I 
 by all the earlier humanists. The earlier humanistic schools had 
 sought to develop such a command of the language by their 
 pupils. But such a conception was threatened by these extreme 
 admirers of Cicero. Erasmus argues that with such a use lan- 
 guage becomes extremely artificial and not a means to the ex- 
 pression of thought; that there was no one model of style; fur- 
 
 •Saintsburt. History of Literary Criticisims, Vol. 2. pp. i»7T 
 
Editor's Introduction 15 
 
 ther that Cic ero do gs not cover all of Roman culture, that all 
 of his writings are not extant and that there are definite defects 
 in the style itself. This last if not the former views was consid- 
 ered sacrilegious by extreme partisans, and called forth vitupera- 
 tive criticism. 
 
 The p^midtenej of the Ciceronians was that, having demon- 
 strated Cicero^ have the masterstyle, a proper style of writing 
 Latin in any age and for any purpose was to be formed by direct 
 imitation of the master. As all possible varieties of styles had 
 been" used by the ancients and all were inferior to Cicero, there 
 was no call for and no justification of individuality in style. They 
 further argued that eclecticism in style lacked all unity — in fact, 
 was not style — so that the student or writer was left but one 
 choice, — ^that of selecting the most nearly perfect stylist and foN 
 lowing him as closely as possible. 
 
 These views call forth Erasmus' most biting satire and ridi- 
 cule. Nosoponus, the Cicero nian o f the Dialogue, boasts that 
 he has read no other author than Cicero for "seven years, that 
 he may ehminate from his own vocabulary every un-Ciceronian 
 phrase. He has compiled a huge lexicon of every word used 
 by Cicero; another one of Ciceronian phrases; another of para- 
 graph introductions and endings; another of words used in 
 various senses by Cicero. Not only is his selection of words 
 determined by the Ciceronian usage, he eschews the use of 
 particular forms of the word not found in Cicero. Writing is a 
 most laborious task. Six nights must be given to compose a 
 letter of as many sentences, then it is revised ten times and then 
 laid aside for future examination. This, though only a note 
 requesting the return of a borrowed book. No matter if it is 
 too late, providing only it is Ciceronian. When Bulep horus ob- 
 jects that such delay is impossible, the characteristic Erasmian re- 
 duction to an absurdity^ occurs in the Ciceronian's reply^hat he 
 avoids all conversation as far as possible, and when forced to 
 speak would use the vernacular, or would confine himself to his 
 stock of Ciceronian phrases carefully memorized for all ordinary 
 occasions. 
 
 The entire dialogue is in characteristic Erasmian vein. The 
 opening scene is a farcical dialogue on the n ew diseas e — Ciceron- 
 ianism — with incidental ridicule of some other professional hum- 
 bugs of the day. Such also is the banter which follows in regard 
 
i6 Editor's Introduction 
 
 to the family life, ^he trae Ciceronian can not have his atten- 
 tion divided by the cares of a family or the interruptions of a 
 wife or children. "^In fact composition can be carried on only 
 in a special room on the interior of the house, " with thick walls, 
 double doors and windows, and all the cracks stopped carefully 
 with pitch and plaster so that by day scarcely' a ray of light can 
 break through or a sound unless it is unusually loud such as 
 that of women's quarrels or of workmen's hammers." Not even 
 a house fly may be permitted in to disturb his attention. But 
 under the banter throughout lies the serious argument; while 
 the latter half of the dialogue is devoted to an estimate of the 
 style of the leading classicists, from the time of Cicero to his 
 own day. In this there is fair praise of those rivals for public 
 esteem of his own generation who might consider themselves most 
 offended by Erasmus' strictures, though in fact much of the sub- 
 sequent criticism of Erasmus was caused by omission as well as 
 by the offence of positive criticism. For especially the friends of 
 Budaeus, himself a friend and correspondent of Erasmus for 
 many years, considered that his claims to distinction were not 
 sufiiciently recognized. 
 
 But there is no need for an analysis of the dialogue to be given 
 here. Several such already exist with which the interested stu- 
 Ident is familiar. What the student needs is a careful perusal 
 > of the entire treatise. Indeed from an analysis one obtains but 
 a very poor conception of the forcefulness of the discussion, for 
 its power consists not so much in the argument as in th e entir e 
 atmosp here w hich it creates which one must breathe to catch 
 the inspiration of the Erasmian ideas and controversial spirit, 
 as well as to feel the stup efying influence of th e Ciceronians. 
 It scarcely needs to be mentioned that the entire delineation of 
 the Ciceromans js a sati ricaLone and is not to be interpreted as 
 an historical presentation or a scientific analysis. Yet it is just 
 because the Dialogue pulsates with life that it possesses its lit- 
 erary charm and its educational significance. P. M. 
 
Translator's Preface 
 
 The translation follows the text of the Lugduni Batavorum, 
 edition (1703) of Erasmus' complete works. The aim has been 
 to render into English the literal Latin as far as possible, depart- 
 ing from it only when the main object of expressing the argu- 
 ment presented in the dialogue was better subserved by omission 
 or freedom. Errors, no doubt, have occurred because of failure 
 to trace out in every instance allusions and references. The 
 erudition of Erasmus taxes too heavily the ordinary encyclo- 
 paedias and dictionaries. Acknowledgment is most gratefully 
 rendered to Professor Nelson G. McCrea, of Columbia Univer- 
 sity, for assistance and kindly advice in the translation. 
 
 I. S. 
 
Ciceronianus 
 
 OR 
 
 A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 
 
 Bulephorus: WTiom do I see walking yonder in the most re- 
 tired part of the porch? If I am not mistaken it is my old friend 
 and fellow student, Nosoponus. 
 
 Hj-pologus: Is this that Nosoponus who w^as once the most 
 charming of all jolly companions, delightfully ruddy and stout, 
 bubbling over with Loves and Graces? 
 
 Bu. — ^The very one. 
 
 Hyp. — ^Whence this new shape? More like to ghost he seems 
 than man. Has he some disease ? 
 
 Bu. — Yes, a very serious one. 
 
 Hyp. — What I pray? Xot dropsy? 
 
 Bu. — ^The ailment is deeper than the skin. 
 
 Hyp. — It isn't that new kind of leprosy which people to-day 
 flatter by the name of mange ? 
 
 Bu. — ^The infection is indeed deeper than that. 
 
 H}^. — It isn't the spitting malady ? 
 
 Bu. — ^The trouble is more deeply seated than in the lungs. 
 
 Hyp. — It isn't jaundice? 
 
 Bu. — It is something deeper than the liver. 
 
 Hyp. — Perhaps a fever ravaging the veins and heart? 
 
 Bu. — It is a fever, and yet not a fever, something burning 
 deeper, advancing from the inmost recesses of the mind. But 
 cease vainly divining. It is a new kind of disease. 
 
 Hyp. — ^Has it then not yet a name? 
 
 Bu. — ^Among the Romans, not yet. The Greeks call it Zelo- 
 dulean. 
 
 Hyp. — Has it come on recently? Or is it a trouble •xponoif.^ 
 
 Bu. — For more than seven years the unfortunate man has been 
 suffering. But we are observed. He seems to be turning his 
 
 *Of I0119 standing. 
 
20 Ciceronianus 
 
 steps hither. You will find out better from him what the trouble 
 is. I shall act the part of Davus ; do you help the conversation 
 along and take a part in the play. 
 
 Hyp. — Indeed I would do it gladly, if I knew what you de- 
 sired. 
 
 Bu. — I desire very much to relieve my dear old friend of so 
 serious a malady. 
 
 Hyp. — .What. Are you skilled in medicine? 
 
 Bu. — ^You know that there is a kind of madness that does not 
 take away the whole mind, but affects one part only in such an 
 extraordinary degree that the victims believe they wear bull's 
 horns on their heads or are burdened with long noses or carry on 
 scrawny necks great earthen heads stire to be broken if they 
 move ever so little, or think themselves dead and shudder at 
 the approach of the Uving. 
 
 Hyp. — ^Yes, I know. 
 
 Bu. — ^There is no better way to heal them than to pretend 
 that you have the same trouble. 
 
 Hyp. — I have heard frequently of that cure. 
 
 Bu.— It shall be tried in this case. 
 
 Hyp. — Not only a spectator of this play, but a willing helper 
 will I be, for I am particularly well disposed toward the man. 
 
 Bu. — Then compose your countenance and play yoiu" part so 
 that nothing may suggest to him that there has been an agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Hyp. — It shall be done. 
 
 Bu. — I bid Nosoponus a very hearty good-day. 
 
 Hyp. — And Hypologus salutes Xosoponus. 
 
 Nosoponus : Indeed I wish you both the same in turn. And 
 may your wish for me be realized! 
 
 Bu. — It could not fail, if giving were as easy as wishing. 
 But, pray, what is the matter; for your thinness forebodes some 
 ill or other? There is clearly some trouble with your Uver. 
 
 No. — With my heart, my dear sir. 
 
 Hyp. — Heaven forbid! I hope it is not incurable. 
 
 Bu. — Is there no help from doctors? 
 
 No. — In human remedies there is no hope. Help must come 
 from above. 
 
 Bu. — A dreadful disease! But succor from what god, pray, 
 must you have? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 21 
 
 No. — It is the goddess who is called by the Greeks, ireiflul-' 
 
 Bu. — I know, the goddess which moves men's souls. 
 
 No. — I am desperately in love with her and am doomed to 
 die unless I win her. 
 
 Bu. — No wonder you pine away, Nosoponus. I know what 
 a powerful thing Love is and what it is to be wfi<j>6kriwTov' How 
 long have you been in love? 
 
 No. — The years are almost ten since I began to roll this stone 
 with no avail. But I am determined to die in the attempt or 
 gain at length the object of my love. 
 
 Bu. — You tell of a love as enduring as it is unhappy, since 
 in so many years it neither has been able to fade nor to win 
 its object. 
 
 Hyp. — Perhaps the possession of his nymph pains him more 
 than the lack of her. 
 
 No. — On the contrary, I am pining away for want of her. 
 
 Bu. — How is it possible? When you alone of all up to the 
 present time have so excelled in eloquence that many say of 
 you what formerly was said of Pericles, "Persuasion sits upon 
 ymir lips?" 
 
 No. — In a word, all eloquence except Ciceronian is distaste- 
 ful to me. This is that nymph for love of whom I am pining 
 away. 
 
 Bu. — Now I know your trouble. You are seeking to gain 
 that splendid and longed for name, Ciceronian. 
 
 No. — So much that I consider life bitter unless I attain it. 
 
 Bu. — Henceforth I cease to wonder; for you have directed 
 your mind to the attainment of a most beautiful thing, but the 
 common saying is only too true, SmtxoXo to. xoXa.' I am in my 
 heart looking with favor upon your wishes myself, if some god 
 will turn propitiously to me. 
 
 No. — What do you mean? 
 
 Bu. — I will tell you, if you can suffer a rival. 
 
 No. — What do you mean? 
 
 Bu. — Love of the same nymph distracts me. 
 
 No. — What! You possessed with the same desire? 
 
 Bu. — Completely, and the flames increase daily. 
 
 ^ Persuasion. 
 
 ' The captive of a nymph. 
 
 ' " The beautiful is hard to attain." 
 
22 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — Indeed in that role you are dearer to me, Bulephorus; 
 for though I have always esteemed you highly, now also I shall 
 begin to love you, since our minds unite in a common wish. 
 
 Bu. — You would, perhaps, be loath to be cured of this disease 
 if some one should promise help from herbs, gems, or charms. 
 
 No. — It would be killing, not curing. Either I must die or 
 attain. There is no middle ground. 
 
 Bu. — How easily I divined your mood from my own. 
 
 No. — I will hide nothing then from you, initiated, as it were, 
 into the same mysteries. 
 
 Bu. — Be assured, you can speak with safety, Nosoponus. 
 
 No. — Not only the splendor of a most beautiful name torments 
 me but also the insolent impertinence of those Italians, who, 
 though they approve of no language at all except Ciceronian 
 and think it the greatest disgrace for one not to be a Ciceronian, 
 nevertheless declare that the honor of this name has never 
 fallen to any on this side the Alps except to Christophe de 
 Longueil, recently deceased, of whom (that I may not seem to 
 grudfe him due praise) I would make bold to declare what 
 Quintilian wrote of Calvus, "Early death did him an injury." 
 
 Hyp. — ^The too early death of De Longueil did less injury to 
 him than to letters. For what could he not have recovered in 
 literature if to such genius and industry the gods had added a 
 fair space of life? 
 
 Bu. — But what hinders that which has been given to one, by 
 the consent of the Muses, to belong to others? 
 
 No. — He died while engaged irJ this most noble work, for- 
 tunate, I think; for what is more beautiful, more glorious, more 
 magnificent than for a Cisalpine to be called a Ciceronian by 
 the vote of the Italians? 
 
 Bu.^I think he is to be congratulated upon his good fortune 
 in dying at the right time, before any shadow darkened his 
 glory either because of growing zeal for Greek letters or a cToud 
 arising from the Christian authors from whom perhaps he would 
 not have kept himself absolutely if 'he hadTived longer. 
 
 Hyp. — I agree with you that he was fortunate to die while 
 engaged in this most noble task; but I hope that we shall sur- 
 vive, not perish in our work. 
 
 No. — I second your wish! Upon my life, I prefer this honor 
 to being sanonized. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 23 
 
 Bu. — Who pray would not rather be celebrated in the eyes 
 of posterity as a Ciceronian than as a saint? But since this 
 kind of love knows no jealousy, I beg you in the name of our 
 common hopes and fears to share with me at least your plans — 
 how you seek to win your mistress. Perhaps we shall both 
 gain her more quickly if we help each other. 
 
 No. — The Muses know not envy, much less the Graces, com- 
 panions of the Muses. To the comrade of one's aims nothing 
 must be denied. All possessions of friends should be com- 
 mon. 
 
 Bu. — You will make me perfectly happy. 
 
 Hyp. — Will you receive me too into your alliance? For I 
 have long been driven by the same frenzy. 
 
 No. — We will. Now I shall reveal the mysteries to those con- 
 secrated, as it were, to the same god. For seven whole years I 
 have touched nothing except Ciceronian books, refraining from 
 others as religiously as the Carthusians refrain from flesh. 
 
 Bu.— Why so? 
 
 No. — Lest somewhere some foreign phrase should creep in 
 and, as it were, dull the splendor of Ciceronian speech. Also 
 I have enclosed in their cases and removed from sight all other 
 books lest I should sin inadvertently; and hereafter there is no 
 place in my library for any one except Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — How neglectful I have been! Never with such care 
 have I cherished Cicero. 
 
 No. — Not only in the chapel and library but also in every 
 doorway have I a picture of him beautifully painted, and I wear 
 one engraved on a gem so that he may ever be in my thoughts. 
 No other vision comes to me in sleep except that of Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — I do not wonder. 
 
 Hyp. — Among the apostles in my calendar I have given a 
 place to Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Quite right. For they used to call him the god of 
 eloquence. 
 
 No. — I have been so diligent too in reading and rereading 
 his writings that I have learned by heart almost all of them. 
 
 Bu. — What industry! 
 
 No. — Now I am girded for imitation. 
 
 Bu. — How much time have you allotted for this? 
 
 No.— ^As much as for the reading. 
 
24 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — It is too little for such an arduous task. Would that 
 there might fall to my lot, even at the age of seventy, the glory 
 of so illustrious a name! 
 
 No. — But hold, I am not content with this. There is not a 
 word in all the books of that divine man which I have not set 
 in order in an alphabetical lexicon. 
 
 Bu. — A huge volume it must be. 
 
 No. — ^Two strong carriers well saddled could scarcely carry 
 it on their backs. 
 
 Bu. — ^Whew! I have seen them at Paris who could carry an 
 elephant. 
 
 No. — ^And there is a second volume even bigger than this 
 in which I have arranged alphabetically the phrases peculiar to 
 Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Now, at last, I am ashamed of my laziness. 
 
 No. — There is a third. 
 
 Bu.— Whew! A third too? 
 
 No. — It had to be. In this I have gathered all the metrical 
 feet with which Cicero ever begins or ends his periods and their 
 subdivisions, the rhjiihms which he uses in between and the 
 cadences which he chooses for each kind of sentence, so that no 
 little point could escape. 
 
 Bu. — But how can it be that the first volume is so much 
 greater than the whole of Cicero? 
 
 No. — Listen and you will understand. You perhaps think 
 that I am content to note the mere words. 
 
 Bu. — I thought so. Is there more? 
 
 No. — On the contrary, that is a mere beginning. 
 
 Bu. — How? 
 
 No. — See how far you miss the mark. The same word is not 
 always used in the same way: for example, the verb refero has 
 one force when Cicero says referre gratiam; another, when he 
 says Liberi parentes et forma corporis et moribus referunt; an- 
 other, when he says Refero me ad intermissa studia; again another, 
 when he says Si quid erit, qiwd mea referat scire; finally another, 
 when he says Non ignota referam. Likewise orare 'Lentulum is 
 one thing; orare causam is another. Again, contendit at one 
 time means he strives with another; at another time it means he 
 earnestly seeks something from some one; at another time, he 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 25 
 
 strives with great seal to accomplish something; and at another 
 time, he puts together two things and compares them. 
 
 Hyp. — Wonderful ! This is drawing up a veritable Xe^iKovs tXey- 
 
 J(OVS"' 
 
 Bu. — Now, at last, I appreciate both your industry and my 
 laziness. 
 
 No. — I do not note individual words unrelated but give the 
 context. And I am not satisfied to have noted one or two 
 passages as some are; but as often as the word is found in 
 Cicero, however similar the form, I note the page, the side of 
 the page, and number of the line, affixing a mark which indi- 
 cates whether the word is in the middle of the Une, at the 
 beginning, or at the end. In this way you see one word takes 
 up several pages. 
 
 Bu. — Ye Gods! What may not such care accomplish! 
 
 No. — Just a second, Bulephorus. You have heard nothing 
 yet. 
 
 Bu. — What else can there be? 
 
 No. — What advantage to know a word if you stumble on its 
 forms, derivatives, compounds? 
 
 Bu. — I do not know exactly what you mean. 
 
 No. — I will explain. What more trite or common than the 
 verbs: amo, lego, scribo? 
 
 Bu. — No question about these, is there? 
 
 No.— Or than these nouns : amor, lectio, scriptor? 
 
 Bu. — Nothing. 
 
 No. — But believe me it is both necessary and needful for one 
 who seeks the dignity of the title, Ciceronian, to be so exact 
 that he will not use these very common words without weighing 
 their meaning — unless, perchance, you think it safe to trust to 
 the Grammarians, who inflect verbs through all moods, persons, 
 genders, and tenses, and notms, pronouns, and participles through 
 all cases and numbers, though we have no right to use any of 
 them not used by Cicero. It is not great to speak like a Gram- 
 marian, but it is divine to speak like Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Explain, I pray, more fully. 
 
 No. — Amo, amas, amat (for this may be cited as an example), 
 I find in Cicero; but amamus and amatis perhaps I do not find. 
 
 1 Inventory of words. 
 
26 Ciceronianus 
 
 Likewise I find amabo, I do not find amabatis. Again amaveras 
 I find, ama/ras I do not; in contrast, amasti I find, amavisti I do 
 not. And what if you should find legeram, legeras, legerat, and 
 should not find legeratis? If you should find scripseram and not 
 scripseratis? In the same way you may form conclusions about 
 the inflections of all verbs. About the inflections of the cases, 
 the method is the same. Amor, amoris, amor em, amori, I am 
 sure of in Cicero; amor, hos amores, horum amorum, his amori- 
 bus, amores, 1 do not find. Likewise lectio, lectionis, lectioni, 
 lectionem, I find ; lectiones, lectionibus, lectionum, has lectiones, 
 and lectiones, I do not. So scriptorem and scriptores, I find ; 
 scriptoribus and scriptorum as a substantive noun I do not find. 
 These things of course must seem ridiculous, if you are bold 
 enough to use stultitias and stultitiarum, vigilantias and vigilanti- 
 arum, speciebus and specierum, fractuum, ornatuum, cultuum, 
 vultuum, ambitibus, and ambituum, and innumerable others of 
 this sort. From these few examples you can judge concerning 
 all which are inflected in the same way. 
 
 Hyp. — ^Intenui labor. 
 
 Bu. — ^At tenuis non gloria. 
 
 No. — I too will join in the refrain,' Si quern numina laeva 
 sinunt, auditque vocatus Apollo. Now about derivatives — lego 
 I should dare to use, legor I should not; nasutus I should, 
 nasutior and nasutissimus never; ornatus and ornatisstijnus, 
 laudatus and laudatissimus I use without hesitation, ornatior and 
 laudatior I scruple to use unless I find them. Nor would I 
 dare to say scriptorculus and lectiuncula just because I find in 
 Cicero scriptor and lectio. 
 
 Bu. — I see an immense forest. 
 
 No. — Now learn about compounds. Amo, adamo, redamo I 
 may say but not deamo. Perspicio I may use but not dispicio. 
 Scribo, describe, subscribe, rescribo, inscribo I may say; tran- 
 scribo I may not unless I have found it in Cicero's works. 
 
 Bu. — Do not tire yourself by citing in detail. We understand 
 perfectly, Nosoponus. 
 
 No. — The smallest volume of all contains these. 
 
 Bu. — A camel's pack. 
 
 ' Vergil G. IV. 6. Slight is the subject, — 
 
 ^ But not slight the praise. 
 
 " If heaven assist and Apollo hear my lays. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 27 
 
 Hyp. — And indeed a full one. 
 
 Bu. — How comes it that you make no mistakes in such a 
 wilderness? 
 
 No. — In the first place I do not rely upon the Grammarians 
 or other authors however well approved, or precepts, or rules, 
 or analogies, which deceive most people. In the Elenchus I 
 take note of all inflections of root words, derivatives, compounds. 
 Those that occur in Cicero I mark with a red mark; those that 
 do not, with a black. So it is not possible to make a mistake. 
 
 Bu. — What if a word is found in Terence or in an equally 
 approved author? Will it be marked with a black mark? 
 
 No. — There is no exception. A Ciceronian he will not be in 
 whose books there is found a single little word which he cannot 
 show in the writing of Cicero: and a man's whole vocabulary I 
 deem spurious just like a counterfeit coin if there is in it even 
 a single word which has not the stamp of the Ciceronian die; 
 for to him alone, as the prince of eloquence, it has been given 
 by the gods above to stamp the coin of Roman speech. 
 
 Bu. — The law is more severe than those of Draco, if a whole 
 volume is condemned, however choice and eloquent it otherwise 
 is, on account of one little word unlike Cicero's. 
 
 Hyp. — But it is fair. Do you not see that on account of one 
 little counterfeit piece of money great wealth is confiscated, 
 and on account of one wart, however small, the whole form of 
 a maiden, otherwise beautiful, is robbed of charm? 
 
 Bu. — I grant it. 
 
 No. — If now from what I have said you draw a conclusion 
 as to the whole, you will see well enough the bulk of this 
 volume — how much larger it is than the volume in which I 
 have gathered the formulas of speech, tropes, figures, gnomes, 
 epiphonemas, witticisms, and all like sweet morsels of speech; or 
 than the third volume which contains all the rhythms and feet 
 in which Cicero begins, develops, and ends his periods. For 
 there is no passage in all Cicero which I have not reduced to 
 definite feet. 
 
 Bu. — This load would surely need an elephant carrier. 
 
 Hyp. — You mean a wagon. 
 
 No. — But I am not misrepresenting at all. 
 
 Bu. — Truly your seven years have not been ill spent. Now 
 that you are finely equipped with dictionaries, tell us, as 
 
28 Ciceronianus 
 
 (Tu/xfivorais-' how you are accustomed to turn this noble collection 
 of yours to the needs of speaking and writing. 
 
 No. — I shall keep no secrets from you. And I shall speak 
 of writing first, as it has been said truly that the pen is the best 
 teacher of eloquence. 
 
 In the first place, I never gird myself to writing, except at 
 dead of night when profound quiet and deep silence reign over 
 all, or if you prefer Vergil's lines: 
 
 -Placidum quun carpunt fessa soporem 
 Corpora per terras, sylvaeque et saeva quierunt 
 Aequora, cum medio volvuntur sidera lapsu, 
 Quum tacet omnis ager, pecudes pictaeque volucres. 
 
 Or again, when there is such tranquillity that if Pythagoras 
 were alive he could hear clearly the harmony of the celestial 
 spheres. For at such a time the gods and goddesses delight to 
 join in converse with pure souls. 
 
 H)T). — At that time of night the uninitiated are afraid of meet- 
 ing ghosts. 
 
 No. — But the Muses have given us power to scorn ill-omened 
 ghosts and the carping crowd. 
 
 Bu. — Yes, but there are nights so quiet that the winds amuse 
 themselves with falling houses and piteous ship-wrecks. 
 
 No. — I know, but I choose the perfectly tranquil nights. Ovid 
 has aptly said: ^Est dcus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo. If, as 
 I was saying, the soul of man has amlhing divine it comes out 
 in this most profound silence. 
 
 Bu. — I have noticed that the seclusion of which you speak is 
 seized upon by the most able men whenever they attempt any- 
 thing worthy of immortality. 
 
 No. — I have a library in the most inmost part of my house 
 with thick walls, double doors and windows, and all the cracks 
 stopped carefully with pitch and plaster so that by day scarcely 
 a ray of light can break through or a sound unless it is unusually 
 loud such as that of women's quarrels or of workmen's hammers. 
 
 1 Friends and brothers. 
 
 2 When wearied bodies through the lands are snatching peaceftil sleep : when forest and 
 fierce seas are calm; when in the middle of their course the stars are rolled; when all the 
 earth is silent; silent all the herds and winged things of varied hue. Vergil — Aeneid IV. 
 
 'There is a divinity in us, and when he stirs our souls we glow. Ovid F. 6, s. 
 
A r>i(i/(>(7M<- i»i tht- Fcst Style of Stt'ok-in^) ;x) 
 
 Bu. — Thundering of human voices ami noises of workshops 
 certainly prevent concentration. 
 
 No. — Not even in an adjoining room do 1 allow a bed lest 
 talking m sleep or snoring break in upon the privacy of my 
 thought. 
 
 H^^1. — Frequently the shrew-mice disturb me at night when I 
 fain would write. 
 
 No, — In my house there is not even a tiy. 
 
 Bu, — You are indeed wise and fortunate as well. Nosoponus, 
 if you can shut out also the anxieties of the mind: for, if they 
 accompany us into our retreat, what shall we liave accomplished 
 by our seclusion? 
 
 No. — Von are right, Bulephorus. I know that those turmoils 
 are often more troublesome than the hammers of neighboring 
 workmen. 
 
 Bu. — ^W'hat about love. hate, envy, hope, fear, jealousy? Do 
 they never trouble you? 
 
 No. — ^To answer briefly, always bear this in mind. Bulephorus, 
 that those who are bound by love, jealousy, ambition, avarice. 
 and like diseases vainly seek this honor for which we are candi- 
 dates. Such a di\-ine thing requires a heart not only free from 
 all vice but also from all anxiety, just as do those more occult 
 sciences — JNlagic. Astrology, and Alchemy. Though these 
 lighter cares yield readily to keen and serious attention, yet 
 I dri\-e them away if there are any such, before I enter that 
 sanctuary, for there I have accustomed my mind to close study, 
 I have decided too that it is most important to remain unwed: 
 not because I ignore the sanctity of marriage, but because a 
 wHfe, children, and relatives can but bring with tliem much 
 cause for anxiety. 
 
 Bu, — You are wise, Nosoponus; for if I should prepare to 
 work on Cicero to that extent at night my wife would burst 
 open the door, would tear the books, and would bum the pages 
 that are absorbed in Cicero. And what is even more intolerable, 
 while I was working on Cicero, she would find another lover, 
 
 Xo, — Since I know that some have had this experience, T 
 have taken warning and have guarded myself in time. For the 
 same reason I have not wished to undertake atiy public duty 
 or ecclesiastical office, lest some anxiety should come to my 
 mind. 
 
30 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — Yet these offices are sought by others most eagerly. 
 
 No. — Indeed I do not envy them. As for me, better than a 
 consulate or rule of the pope is it to be and to be considered 
 a Ciceronian. 
 
 Hy. — He loves truly who can love but one. 
 
 No. — In the second place, if I am preparing for anything of 
 this kind I forego dinner, having also breakfasted lightly, lest 
 something of crass matter should invade the seat of etherial mind 
 or lest some cloud exhaled from the stomach should weigh down 
 and ^aMgat humo divinae particulom aurae. 
 
 Bu. — Thus I believe Hesiod was affected when he wrote. 
 
 Hyp. — But -Eunius ipse pater numquam nisi potus ad arma 
 prosiliit dicenda. 
 
 No. — ^And therefore he wrote songs redolent of wine. 
 
 Bu. — And ''satur, quum Horatius dicit Ohe. 
 . No. — ^We are not concerned with poetic frenzy. To be a 
 Ciceronian is a sober task. 
 
 Hyp. — My brain deserts me when I fast 
 
 No. — It is not absolutely fasting. I take ten small raisins, 
 the kind they call currants. This is neither food nor drink and 
 yet it is both. 
 
 Bu. — I know. They dissolve slowly and aid the brain and 
 memory. 
 
 No. — ^And three coriander seeds coated with sugar. 
 
 Bu. — Excellent. To counteract the currants . 
 
 No. — ^And I do not choose nights indiscriminately for this 
 work. 
 
 Bu. — No? You have excepted those on which the winds rage. 
 Possibly you avoid winter nights on account of the cold. 
 
 No. — A glowing hearth readily - dispels that discomfort. 
 
 Hyp. — But sometimes smoke and the crackling of fuel is 
 distracting. 
 
 No. — I use wood so dry that it emits no smoke in burning. 
 
 Bu. — ^Well, what nights do you choose? 
 
 No. — Favorable seasons for this work are few indeed, there- 
 fore I choose auspicious nights. 
 
 ^ Chain to earth that particle of essence divine. Horace Sat. a. a, 7g. 
 ^ Horace Epistle i. 19. 8 
 
 Father Exmius ne'er caught up his lyre 
 
 To sing of fights, till wine had lent him fire. — Martin. 
 * He is filled when Horace says Ohel Juvenal Sat. VII, 62. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style- of Speaking 31 
 
 Bu. — By what means, pray? 
 
 No. — By astrologj'. 
 
 Bu. — Since you are so completely engrossed in Cicero how 
 have you leisure to leam astrolc^y? 
 
 No. — I bought the book of an expert in this art. I act upon 
 his advice. 
 
 H)-p. — I hear that many have been deceived by such books, 
 because the author has reckoned wrong. 
 
 No. — I did not buy until I had examined it carefully. 
 
 Bu. — This is what writing means! Then I no longer marvel, 
 Hv-pologus, that our works are crude and unpolished. But tell 
 me, according to this rule, which is of first importance, attention 
 to subject or to language 
 
 No. — Both, 
 
 Bu. — You have given me a puzzle, not an answer. 
 
 No. — But I will explain the puzzle. In general, attention to 
 subject matter is prior to thought of words; in particular, it is 
 secondan.-, 
 
 Bu. — It is not quite clear what you mean. 
 
 No. — I will make it clear with an illustration. Imagine that 
 I have decided to write to Titius asking him to see, as soon as 
 possible, that tlie books are returned which I loaned, if he wishes 
 our friendship to continue, for something has happened that I 
 am in great need of them. If he does this, there is nothing in 
 my possession which he may not consider his own; if not. I 
 shall break the bond of old friendship. Here no doubt the first 
 thought is of the facts, but in a general way. 
 
 Bu. — I see. 
 
 No. — ^Then follows the question of the words. I read as many 
 letters of Cicero as possible; I consult all my lists; I select 
 some words strikingly Ciceronian, some tropes, and phrases, 
 and rh]i-thms. Finally, when furnished sufficiently with this kind 
 of material, I examine what figures of speech I can use and 
 where I can use them. Then I return to the question of sen- 
 tences. For this now is a work of art to find meanings for these 
 verbal embelHshments. 
 
 Hyp. — ^Just as an illustrious workman prepares an exquisite 
 dress, necklace, rings, and gems ; and afterward fashions a \vaxen 
 image upon which he may fit these adornments, or rather, 
 which he mav mould to the adornments. 
 
2,2 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — Why not? But come Nosoponus, is the whole night 
 given to one letter? 
 
 No. — Why do you say onef I deem myself very fortunate if 
 a winter night shall have finished a single sentence. 
 
 Bu. — Do you write such long letters upon so trivial a subject? 
 
 No. — Not at all. Very short ones, not more than a half dozen 
 sentences. 
 
 Bu. — And it takes six nights to finish it? 
 
 No. — As if it were enough to write just once. Ten times 
 must you. reshape what you have written, ten times test it by 
 your dictionary lest by chance some little counterfeit word 
 may have escaped you. Then there is still the examination of 
 tropes and phrases and, lastly, of rhythms and style. 
 
 Bu. — No wonder it is a task to finish your work. 
 
 No. — Not even is this enough, my dear sir; for, since the 
 finished work is your greatest possible anxiety, it must be laid 
 aside for several days so that after an interval, when the love 
 of invention has grown cold, you may cull, as it were, the bar- 
 barisms which are your own. Here then a severe censorship is 
 exercised. This is a severe, and, as the Greeks say dSoco^w'- 
 judgment, when he who writes ceases to be a parent and be- 
 comes an Areopagite. Here it often happens that you turn your 
 pen and erase everything. 
 
 Bu. — It is true that in this way your books show the result 
 of great care but in the meantime the other t)rpe of writer enjoys 
 some books which you have not. 
 
 No. — This inconvenience I should prefer to submit to rather 
 than to send forth anything which is not Ciceronian. Each one 
 is led by his own judgment. I prefer quality to quantity. 
 
 Bu. — We have your theory of writing. What preparation do 
 you make for speaking? 
 
 No. — The first precaution is, not to converse in Latin if I 
 can help it. 
 
 Bu. — Not in Latin? Yet they say that by practice we learn 
 to speak well. It is a new plan to learn to speak by keeping 
 silent. 
 
 No. — By speaking we come to speak readily but never to 
 speak Ciceronian Latin. Those who prepare themselves for 
 equestrian contest keep the blooded horses from the course 
 
 lUnbribed. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 33 
 
 that they may come to race with miiinpaired strength. The 
 fannter keq)s back the high-bred dog till the game is seen. 
 French or Dutch is good enough for babbling about trifles. In 
 common and profane conversations I do not contaminate the 
 sacred tongue. But, if I am compelled to speak in Latin, I 
 speak briefly and carefully. And for this purpose I have some 
 set phrases. 
 
 Bu. — ^WTiat phrases do you mean? 
 
 Xo. — For example, when you must greet or return the grert- 
 ing of a learned friend whoxn you chance to meet; or you must 
 compliment one who has complimented you; or must congratu- 
 late one who has returned from a long trip abroad or recovered 
 from a serious iUness; or must thank someone who has done 
 yon a favor; or congratulate one who has recently married; or 
 condole with one whose wife has died, — for these and like oc- 
 casions I have provided myself with phrases selected and ar- 
 ranged from Cicero. I have learned them so that I may use 
 them, as it were, cjt tempore. Then if an occasion arises that the 
 conversation must be extended finther, by much reading I wash 
 away the taint. And I am not unaware how great a wrong I 
 am committing through this very conversation which is being 
 held with you, how great a loss I am sustaining in the matter of 
 my ambition. Indeed a month's reading will hardly make 
 amends. 
 
 Bn. — Suppose you have rime for meditation? 
 
 Xo. — TTien I leam carefully what has been worked out in 
 this way; and, in order that I may remember better, I repeat 
 them to myself so that when occasion arises I may jwonounce 
 them as if from the written word. 
 
 Bu. — ^\Miat if some exigency should demand an extempor- 
 aneous speech? 
 
 Xo. — How can that happen to one who has no public life? 
 But if I should have occasion I am not better than Demosthenes, 
 who would never get up imless he had prepared himself however 
 much he was called by the shouts of the people. And I could 
 not think that I need-be ashamed of what is praised in the chief 
 orator among the Greeks or that I should be sorry for the cen- 
 sure if any one should say tw X^pwr Mrdjajr* 
 
 • That mj- Issgaage was bcvikisi. 
 
34 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — I admire your purpose and your determination more 
 than I can tell. Indeed, I should feel envy if in this kind of 
 enterprise or among such fast friends and companions such mis- 
 fortune could befall. But inasmuch as what we seek is arduous 
 and the way is not only long and difficult but doubtful, even if 
 the danger were peculiarly your own, nevertheless I should 
 think it due to our long and intimate friendship that I advise 
 my friend unreservedly: lest he undertake so many cares and 
 spend many wakeful hours with loss of health and property to 
 no purpose; lest he continue to do this when once he has begun; 
 and lest, as too frequently we see happen in human aflfairs, in- 
 stead of a treasure long and diligently sought he find only char- 
 coal at last. And since we all are led by the same desire and 
 are held by the love of the same nymph (for even Hypologus is 
 of the same mind) it will be an act of kindness on your part to 
 listen to our advice and, if you have anythmg better, to suggest 
 it freely to your friends. 
 
 No. — A very reasonable thing, Bulephorus. Therefore I shall 
 neither listen to you unwillingly nor if I can give any advice 
 shall I make the contribution grudgingly. 
 
 Bu. — ^In the first place this is agreed between us, I think, 
 that he who seeks a reputation for writing or speaking, having 
 learned and mastered carefully the rules of his art, must choose 
 from the many noted writers a master whom he will imitate and 
 whom he will set himself to reproduce. 
 
 No. — Yes. 
 
 Bu. — But there is no one at least among the Romans who 
 excels in more points of eloquence than Cicero of whom with 
 perfect right it has been said, as was said of Apelles, "In him 
 alone was fused whatever yvas extraordinary or singular in other 
 painters." 
 
 No. — Who can deny this? 
 
 Bu. — You will pardon me if I draw my conclusions rather 
 crassly and roughly, for I am unversed in logic. 
 
 No. — Anything goes among friends. And yet in general he 
 reasons acutely enough for me who reasons truly. 
 
 Bu. — Well, what then do you think of Zeuxis of Heraclea? 
 
 No. — What else than what is worthy of the most excellent 
 draughtsman? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 35 
 
 Bu. — And this, for you think him to have great talent and 
 wisdom? 
 
 No. — How could so great skill be without wisdom? 
 
 Bu. — You answer well. What idea then occurred to him wheK 
 about to paint the picture of Helen for the inhabitants of Crotona 
 — a picture in which he determined to put all the power of his 
 art and to bring forth a perfect and lifelike example of womanly 
 beauty' (for in this kind of work he is said to have excelled 
 others) in which no portion of charm would be missing? He 
 did not use as a model the most beautiful woman, but from all 
 who offered themselves to him he chose several who were more 
 excellent than the rest in order that he might select from each 
 what was most comely, and thus at last he completed that wonder- 
 ful monument of his art. 
 
 No. — His work was most carefully done. 
 
 Bu. — Consider then whether we are following the right plan 
 when we think we must seek our model of eloquence from 
 Cicero alone, however excellent he may be. 
 
 No. — If Zeuxis had found a virgin of such beauty as Cicero, 
 perhaps he would have been content with one single model. 
 
 Bu. — Yet in what way could he have reached this very deci- 
 sion, if he had not carefully examined many? 
 
 No. — Believe me. I am firm. 
 
 Bu. — You think then that there is no virtue worthy of imita- 
 tion in other orators not found in the highest degree in Cicero? 
 
 No. — Yes. 
 
 Bu. — And that there is no blemish in him which is not greater 
 in others? 
 
 No. — Exactly so. 
 
 Bu. — In this connection I will not cite ^Marcus Brutus, who 
 disagreed entirely with Cicero; for, although the main conten- 
 tion of the defense and the propositions of the division are the 
 pillars, as it were, of the case and the chief part of the argument 
 in Pro Milone, which we all so admire, Brutus disapproved of 
 the first and second points employed by Cicero, and handled 
 the same case in a different way. I will not cite ^Pomponius 
 Atticus, whose finger nails and red pencil Cicero says he feared. 
 I will not cite Cato who called Cicero ridiculous when he thought 
 
 IQuintilian Inst. Or. III. o. 6. & XII. c. i. 
 »Ep. Ad Atticum XV. 14, & XVI, 11. 
 
36 Ciceronianus 
 
 himself most witty. Thus far I have mentioned men who are 
 of importance and friends of Cicero. If I add Gallus, Lartius, 
 Licinius, Cestius, Calvus, Asinius, Caelius, Seneca too, and 
 many others, who not only have not felt deeply enough the 
 genius of Cicero but have even condemned his kind of oratory — 
 some calling him dry, jejune, sapless, bloodless, disjointed, weak 
 and unmanly; others, bombastic, Asiatic, and redundant — ^you 
 will say that these are judgments either of enemies or of jealous 
 persons who, exiled by proscription of the triumvirate, have 
 sought if not to destroy, at least to dull his fame. 
 
 No. — You divine rightly. For I certainly should have given 
 this very answer and I think it would have been perfectly fair. 
 
 Bu. — ^Although these judgments may be attributed to hate 
 and envy, you will surely acknowledge that with all scholars wit 
 is a part of the rhetorical art. 
 
 No. — If not, why should orators lay so much stress upon it? 
 
 Bu. — No one denies that Cicero indulged much in joking. 
 Some say too much, even out of season and almost bordering 
 upon scurrility. Certainly a great majority of scholars hold 
 that in this he lacked moderation just as Demosthenes lacked 
 ability; nor does ^Quintilian exonerate him when he puts the 
 blame on Tiro, who allowed the nimiber of Cicero's bon mots to 
 become far too large and who showed more zeal in collecting 
 than wisdom in selecting them. In fact, this criticism of Tiro 
 falls back upon his patron. But, however this may be, did any 
 one ever in point of wit give the first rank to Cicero? Wit was 
 the peculiar gift of the Spartans and after them of the natives of 
 Attica. It was so exclusively theirs, that, when the pastoral 
 poem and comedy was most highly praised for its grace and wit, 
 the Romans did not even aspire to it. There is, therefore, some 
 oratorical excellence which is more rightly sought from others 
 than from Cicero. 
 
 No. — We are speaking of the Romans. 
 
 Bu. — Well, do we dare to compare the jokes of Cicero with 
 those of Caius Caesar or of Octavius Caesar? 
 
 No. — Hardly would I dare what no scholar has dared. 
 
 Bu. — Well then, if the theme should demand mirth, it would 
 not be right for me to borrow from the wit of Octavius? 
 
 No. — Not if you wish to be a Ciceronian. 
 
 'Inst. Orator. VT, t. 3. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 37 
 
 Bu. — Again, may I ask whether you class moral reflections 
 among ornaments of speech? 
 
 No. — Gems they are and shining lights. Far be it from me 
 to exclude them from art. 
 
 Bu.^-My next question. Do you think Cicero excelled all 
 others in these reflections? 
 
 No. — I know tha,t ^Seneca ranked Publius ^Mimographus 
 first in this; but it does not follow that Seneca's estimate is true, 
 for he is extravagant and indulges in certain foibles. 
 
 Hy. — You mean to say that the judgment of Quintilian and 
 of Aulus Gellius could be disregarded because they both seemed 
 jealous of Seneca; one on account of rivalry, the other on ac- 
 count of likeness in talent and diction? 
 
 Bu. — Yes, but this same Gellius, even granting him unfair, 
 acknowledges that among Seneca's reflections there were some 
 which could not be surpassed, — and one could not expect all to 
 be equally good when the whole work is made up of them. 
 Truly from Seneca's reflections you can find something to imitate 
 more easily than from others where maxims are neither frequent 
 nor striking. But tell me, does a subject sometimes demand 
 brevity? 
 
 No. — Perhaps. 
 
 Bu. — Will you seek the best example of this from Sallust or 
 Brutus or Cicero? 
 
 No. — Cicero has not striven after brevity. 
 
 Bu. — In Demosthenes forcefulness is praised, that is, some- 
 thing vigorous and natural. From which of the two shall we 
 seek this most properly? 
 
 No. — We are speaking of the Romans. 
 
 Bu. — But these are common points of all languages. Again, 
 sometimes the subject demands austerity. Shall we seek this 
 more rightly from Cicero or Brutus and PoUio? 
 
 Hjj). — If I may answer for my friend here, from the latter 
 who are distinguished for this characteristic. 
 
 Bu. — When the case is involved, when it must be set forth 
 in divisions, shall we go to Cicero or to Hortensius and his 
 school? 
 
 »Epis. VIII & Cap. IX ad Marciam & Cap. XI. de Tranquill. 
 ^Writer of mimes. 
 
38 Ciceronianus 
 
 Xo. — ^\Vhy shall we go to one of whom there is nothing left 
 but a memory: 
 
 Bu. — ^But for the sake of the argmnent let us imagine that 
 his works are extant 
 
 Xo. — There is no need of imagining. Let us deal with the 
 known and the true. 
 
 Bu. — Everyone will acknowledge that trusrvs onhiness in an 
 orator is the chief thing. A reputation for honest>' and serious- 
 mindedness gains this, while a suspicion of artfulness and lack 
 of moderation lessens it. While Cicero may be considered a 
 good man — a thing which Fabius. though a sa-ong partisan of 
 his, hardly dares to allow; yet we must admit that he makes a 
 greater display of his skill, boasts more, and inveighs more 
 freely against others than Cato. Brutus, or Caelius to whom 
 QuintUian ascribes conscientiousness. Do we not then more 
 properly seek an example of these things from Aristides, Pho- 
 cion, Cato, or Brutus than from Cicero? 
 
 Xo. — One would think y^ou had come to this conclusion by 
 studying how to disparage Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — By no means. If you wiU wait the end of my speech, 
 you will see that I am pleading Cicero's case along with om- 
 own. For Cicero I am pleading that we may not obscure his 
 glory by imitating him badly as unskilled painters are wont to 
 dishonor those whose portraits they have made quite different 
 from the originals; for ourselves, that we may not misplace our 
 affection and faU upon something- as ridiculous and unfortunate 
 as is said to have happened to Ixion who embraced an unsub- 
 stantial cloud instead of his beloved Juno, or to Paris who for 
 stolen Helen waged war ten years, all the while embracing a 
 coimterfeit image of Helen, while she herself, no doubt, had 
 been carried far away to Eg>-pt by the cunning gods. For what 
 is more unfortunate for us or more ridiculous if nothing restdts 
 from all our tofl except a false and empt\- shadow of Cicero? 
 
 Xo. — God forbid! 
 
 Bu. — Such is my prayer and I am doing all I can to prevent it. 
 
 Xo. — It is helpful in our imitation of Cicero to hold the highest 
 possible opinion of him. 
 
 Bu. — It is a new standard of truth, however, if we think of 
 Cicero better than he thinks of himself. Grant that it mav be 
 attributed to his modesty if he speak disparagringlv of himsell 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 39 
 
 Yet did any one of the ancients ever so admire Cicero that he 
 thought all ornaments of speech ought to be sought from him 
 alone? 
 
 No. — Perhaps not, but today very many think so. 
 
 Bu. — I care not at all for your very many. I do not believe 
 that any one person is all wise. Has nature yet favored any 
 mortal even in a given field so that he alone excels all others in 
 each particular division; that he has left nothing to be desired; 
 or that he has accomplished so much that he could not be ex- 
 celled by others? How much more incredible is this in oratory 
 which involves practically all fields of study, which demands 
 many things that cannot be reduced to rules! Let us imagine 
 Cicero alive today and also some such one as ^Trachallus. 
 Would you prefer to seek modulation from Cicero or from' 
 Trachallus? I think from the one who was master of all in 
 this particular. Would you prefer to seek a pattern of pro- 
 priety and modesty from Crassus, if he were alive, or from 
 Cicero ? In general, would you not take from each that in which 
 each excelled? 
 
 Hyp. — Who, except the indiscriminating or envious, would 
 not choose the better? 
 
 Bu. — Therefore the example of Zeuxis commands my ap- 
 proval, and of Quintilian who taught that not just one model 
 must be chosen nor yet all nor any at random but some few 
 choice ones, among whom he gave Cicero first but not sole 
 rank; for he wished him to be foremost among the masters but 
 not alone. 
 
 No. — If we give ear to the counsels of Quintilian we shall 
 share his experience. 
 
 Bu. — What pray? 
 
 No. — That we shall fall short of the Ciceronian standard. We 
 aim higher than that. 
 
 Bu. — Will he fail to be Ciceronian who has something more 
 than what he has gotten from Cicero? 
 
 No. — So they say. 
 
 Bu. — Even if what he gets from someone else is better or is 
 not in Cicero? 
 
 No.— Why not? 
 
 1 See Quintilian X, i, iig. 
 
40 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — In passing I would have you consider, most excellent 
 Nosoponus, what proportion of Cicero's books have perished, 
 among which is that divine v/ork,- De Republica, a fragment of 
 which by some fate or other preserved torments our souls with 
 a constant desire for the other volumes and allows us to judge 
 the lion, as they say, by the claws — not to mention, for the 
 moment, the many volumes of letters, the many orations stolen 
 by the waste of time, the three volumes in which Cicero's freed- 
 man Tiro is said to have gathered his jokes and clever sayings, 
 and the utter loss of his other writings How then can you be 
 a perfect Ciceronian who have not read so many of his works? 
 Add that Cicero has not handled all subjects. If, therefore, we 
 are compelled to speak on themes which he has not touched, 
 where, pray, shall we seek a store of phrases? Shall we go 
 forth into the Elysian fields to ask hiin in what words he would 
 have described such things? 
 
 No. — Those themes only will I handle which can be expressed 
 in the words of Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Well, do yoti not think that Cicero is the most excellent 
 of orators? 
 
 No. — By far. 
 
 Bu. — ^And Apelles? Is he not the best of painters? 
 
 No. — People say so and I believe it. 
 
 Bu. — Would you call him an Apellean who. could paint pic- 
 tures only from studies which Apelles had painted before, and 
 who also had not seen all the pictures which had been painted 
 by the hand of Apelles? 
 
 Hyp. — Who would say this except perchance that painter of 
 Horace's jest, who being hired to paint a shipwreck painted a 
 cypress and asked his patron, who expressed indignation, whether 
 he wished to be painted clinging to the cypress? 
 
 Bu. — What else is Ciceronianism except something exactly 
 like this? 
 
 No. — It is nothing else. 
 : [Bui — Does he seem like Cicero who can speak only on a 
 limited number of subjects? 
 
 No. — Go on. 
 
 Bu. — He would be considered in my mind unworthy of the 
 title even of orator. If Cicero was able to speak most excellently 
 upon any subject you please, he to me would be a Ciceronian 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 41 
 
 who could discourse skillfully upon any theme whatever; just 
 as he would be an Apellean who could portray with his brush 
 the forms of gods and men and of living thingfs. 
 
 No. — For my part I deem it a greater accomplishment to 
 write three letters in Ciceronian style than a hundred volumes in 
 any other as polished as you please. 
 
 Bu. — But if this idea is definitely fixed in our minds, I fear 
 not only we shall not become Ciceronians, but we shall even 
 seem strangers to Cicero. Tell me, I pray, truly, do you think 
 that Cicero must be imitated in every point or in part? 
 
 No. — In every point as far as he goes and wholly. 
 
 Bu. — How can we imitate him completely when he has not 
 expressed himself completely? Furthermore, how mutilated he 
 is and scarcely half extant in that field in which he has accom- 
 plished most! And in the very works which are extant he has 
 not always satisfied himself. For he, as it were, condemned 
 De Inventione and substituted De Oratore. And he calls the 
 oration in behalf of Dejotarus a poor work. And again, in those 
 books which he merely wrote and did not even revise Cicero 
 himself was not a Ciceronian, — for example, De Legibus and 
 many others. How then can we take him for our only example 
 who is mutilated and abridged and sometimes uncorrected and 
 unnatural? Unless perchance you are going to approve of one 
 who, by imitating the unfinished canvasses of Apelles or the 
 rough statues of Lysippus, would hope to become a second 
 Apelles or Lysippus. If Apelles himself, who they say was a 
 man of frank and independent mind, of free and splendid genius, 
 should see this, would he not exclaim, "What are you doing 
 KaKo^i;A,e-i This is not Apelles." If one had before him as a 
 model an illustrious statue of Lysippus whose mouth and chin 
 was rust-eaten or unfinished, would he, unwilling to take the 
 pattern of this part from some other workman, think it better 
 to imitate a disfigured and imperfect face than to give up the 
 model to which he had devoted himself and supply what was 
 lacking from the statue of another workman? 
 
 No. — "As we can," the adage runs, "since we may not as we 
 will." 
 
 Bu. — That adage would be better quoted by those, Nosoponus, 
 who make good from other writers the deficiencies of Cicero; 
 
 1 Miserable imitator. 
 
42 Ciceronianus 
 
 for they, though they would prefer to follow him alone either 
 because it is easier or because no one speaks more happily than 
 he, borrow from others when necessary. How can we gain- 
 say the fact that Cicero's works, as we have them, are not only 
 so mutilated but also so distorted that if he should come to life, 
 I venture he would not recognize his own writings nor could he 
 restore those which have been corrupted by the boldness, care- 
 lessness and ignorance of copyists and pseudo-scholars (mostly 
 Teutons according to Politian, but while I am unwilling to 
 defend them, yet at the same time I think just as many blunders 
 have been made by certain bold Italian sciolists), not to mention 
 for the moment, the forgeries and works claiming Cicero as 
 author under false title. Of this class are the four books on> 
 rhetoric dedicated to Herennius, the work of a man by no 
 means learned and a stammerer in comparison with Cicero. And'' 
 there are among Cicero's orations some which do not seem to 
 have been written by him, but by some scholar for the sake of 
 practice in oratory. There has been added recently an oration, 
 Pro M. Valeria, which is actually full of solecisms and utterly 
 unlike Cicero. Some read the declamation of Porcius Latro 
 against Catiline as a speech of Cicero's. Then if we with 
 devoted minds dedicate ourselves to Cicero alone, intending to 
 express whatever we find without regard to choice, shall we 
 not find ourselves in the greatest danger, after long and earnest , 
 exertion, of appropriating and imitating only Gothic words and 
 Teuton solecisms instead of Ciceronian flowerets? 
 
 No. — May the Muses avert that ill! 
 
 Bu. — I fear that this may happen to us often while the Muses 
 sleep, Nosoponus. For more than once have we seen this sport. 
 How often have they who thought themselves Ciceronians 
 laughed at a fragment culled from Cicero with the title of some 
 German added and called it a barbarian's work ! Or, when some- 
 thing composed only the day before was brought out with the 
 name of Cicero attached and pretence made that an original had 
 been found in a very old library, how they have worshipped!! 
 How they have adored the divine and inimitable phrasing of 
 Cicero! What about the fact too that scholars admit there are 
 inexcusable blunders in Cicero's writings, such as have been 
 made by learned men in all times, when, absorbed in their sub- 
 ject, they remember rather the preceding thought than the words 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 43 
 
 and thus it happens that the close of the period does not agree 
 with the beginning? As, for example, in Diutius commorans 
 Athenis, quoniam venti negabant solvendi facultatem, erat animus 
 ad te scrihere, the writer first thought volebam or statueram, then 
 afterward in animo erat was more pleasing; and, though the 
 words made the same sense, yet they fitted poorly with those 
 which preceded. Further, Aulus Gellius cites a passage from the 
 second book of Cicero's De Gloria, in which plainly there is a 
 mistake, assigning some verses from Homer's Iliad to Ajax when 
 there they are spoken by Hector. Shall we try to imitate this 
 too? We must if we imitate him in every point. Once more, 
 there is a tradition that Cicero has said some things which scho- 
 lars have thought ought not to be imitated; for example, in 
 potestatem esse, instead of in potestate esse. It is of course pos- 
 sible that a slip of the pen or some other mishap in writing made 
 that tent for te in the original or that the lazy scribe introduced 
 it in the later manuscripts. Again, in the edict of Marc Antony 
 Cicero condemns as a barbarism, unheard of by the Romans, the 
 word ^piissimus from pius, though this word is found in the 
 most approved authors. He likewise criticised as a solecism 
 Antony's use of the phrase ^facere contumeliam just as we say 
 facere injuriam, although in Terence — the best representative, if 
 I mistake not, of polished Latinity — Thais speaks thus: Nam si 
 ego digna hac contumelia sim niaxime, at tu indignus qui faceres 
 tamen, where, I think, contumeliam is understood to be repeated. 
 Likewise he refrained from using the words ^novissime and 
 novissimus, on the ground that they were poor Latin, though 
 Cato and Sallust did not hesitate to employ them. Aulus Gellius 
 bears witness of Cicero's dislike of this word and many others 
 which were often used by good Latin authors both before and 
 after him. And he is said to have written j.s whenever a long 
 vowel preceded, as in caussa, visse, remissi for causa, vise, remisi. 
 Shall we then, following Cicero exactly, refrain from those things 
 which pleased scholars but did not please Cicero or follow those 
 which no scholar would imitate or could excuse? 
 
 Hyp. — It is, to be sure, a characteristic of lovers to kiss the 
 blemishes of those they love. 
 
 'PhUipp. XIII, c. 19. 
 'Philipp. Ill, c. g. 
 ^Aulus Gellius X, c. 21. 
 
44 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — If he is to be copied exactly, shall we write verses after 
 his example, without the aid of Apollo and the Muses? 
 
 No. — I make exception of verse. 
 
 Bu. — You surely make exception of a good part of his stock 
 when you except verse. What hinders our making use of this 
 exception at least where he is excelled by others, as in this whole 
 field he is inferior to many, not to say all? How many quota- 
 tions does he use from Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, poorly 
 translated, in iambic verse, contrary to the practice of the Greeks, 
 and with a freedom which Latin writers of comedy have per- 
 mitted themselves. If you should wish to do something of the 
 same sort would you fear to make a better and more literal 
 translation, lest you be too unlike Cicero? And does he not 
 mar his prose by mingling with it verses of his own translation 
 that fail to harmonize with the rest of the language? Further- 
 more, since he constantly inserts in his books verses from 
 Ennius, Naevius, Pacuvius, and Lucilius which smack of that 
 uncouth and uncultured antiquity, will it be a point of honor 
 with you to quote like verses, or rather I should say unlike 
 verses, from Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, or Persius, whose?; 
 works have as much less crudeness as they have more elegance 
 and erudition? Do you fear in this to seem unlike Cicero? 
 
 No. — Of course we shall vary a little from the model we are 
 trying to reproduce. 
 
 Bu. — But why is it necessary to imitate exactly and always, 
 when often it is better to rival and sometimes easier to surpass? 
 
 No. — I think that even the Muses themselves will never speak 
 better than Cicero. 
 
 Hyp. — Perhaps they could if they tried very hard, writing at 
 night, supperless, near a small lamp. 
 
 Bu. — Do not get excited, I beg of you, Nosoponus; for I 
 stipulated, once for all, the right to say with impunity what I 
 pleased. When one is as devoted and pledged to Cicero as we 
 are now, is there not danger that one, blind with love, will mis- 
 take faults for virtues, or knowingly will portray even his very 
 faults? 
 
 No. — 'HpaKXas!' Faults in Cicero! 
 
 Bu. — Yes, unless perchance a solecism is a fault in others and 
 not in Cicero; for, as we have said, scholars have pointed out 
 
 ^Hercules! 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 45 
 
 solecisms in his books. Or unless a slip of memory is not a 
 fault, which too has been pointed out by scholars. Or unless 
 it is not a fault to annoy one's client with immoderate mention 
 of one's own praises, which Asconius Pedianus declares was 
 done in Pro Alilone; and which was almost always a source of 
 annoyance in Cicero because of his desire, as Seneca most aptly 
 says, of ^noii sine causa, sed sine fine glorians. And I do not 
 know in which he was the more intemperate — in boasting of him- 
 self or in censuring others. With whatever zeal we may defend 
 these characteristics, we shall not be able to deny that at least 
 in this respect a better model can be found. 
 
 No. — Let us leave off talking of personal characteristics and 
 revert to the discussion of strength and beauty of speech. 
 
 Bu. — I should gladly do so if the rhetoricians did not declare 
 that one cannot be a good orator who is not also a good man. 
 But reverting, does it not seem to you to be faulty composition 
 for a word following another to begin with the same syllables 
 with which the preceding ended, as it were, carrying back a 
 mocking echo; for example, if you should say, ne mihi dona 
 donata, ne z'oces referas feras, ne per imperitos scribas scribas 
 Basso? 
 
 No. — I grant that the collocation is foolish and absurd. 
 
 Bu. — But such is quoted from our beloved Cicero: ^0 for- 
 tunatam natam me Consule Roman. 
 
 No. — I have already once made exception of his poetry. 
 
 Bu. — In my way of thinking, when once you except this you 
 except the whole of Cicero. But you have not yet escaped. 
 Quintilian quotes for you from Cicero's prose as perfect a collo- 
 cation, Res mihi invisae z'isae sunt Brute — or if you prefer to 
 pronounce after the fashion of Cicero, in-i'issae sunt — not to do 
 injustice to the two rnolossi in the close of the sentence. 
 I No. — ^That was in a familiar letter. 
 
 Bu. — I do not object to it. I only ask if you think it ought 
 to be imitated. Certainly you will acknowledge that some better 
 phrasing could be made. 
 
 No. — Perhaps. 
 
 Bu. — Do I recall something in this connection about the dash- 
 ing of vowels which renders speech open and disagreeable? Has 
 
 Ifioastins not without reason but without end. De bravitate vitae, Cap. V. 
 >Ouintilian IX, c. 4- Inst. Orator. 
 
46 Ciceronianus 
 
 not this too been marked by scholars in Cicero? He was in- 
 different, you say. I do not deny it, but let us acknowledge 
 that there is something in other writers different or better. And 
 let me inquire, what writer have you known so alert and so 
 fortunate that he has never been caught napping at any point? 
 
 No. — Why not? They are men. 
 
 Bu. — Among men then you number Cicero? 
 
 No. — Sometimes. 
 
 Bu. — Do you then consider it better to imitate Cicero napping 
 than Sallust or Brutus or Caesar awake? 
 
 Hyp. — Who would not prefer to copy one awake? 
 
 Bu. — Did not Vergil imitate Homer, though he corrected many 
 of his faults? Did he not imitate Hesiod so that he sometimes 
 excelled him? Did not Horace imitate the Greek lyric poets, 
 culling from each one what was most beatuiful and thus sur- 
 passing them all ? ^" Ego,'' he says, " apis Matinae More 
 modoque Grata carpentis thy ma per laborem Plurimum, circa 
 minus, uvidique Tiburis ripas, operosa parvus Carmina 1ingo."\ 
 And did he not imitate Lucilius, consciously omitting certain 
 things and designedly taking from others what was more worthy 
 of imitation ? Need I mention others ? Did Cicero himself draw 
 his marvelous fluency from any one model, or rather did he not 
 by sifting equally together Greek and Latin philosophers, his- 
 torians, rhetoricians, comic, tragic, and lyric poets, weave and 
 finish that divine style of his ? If it behooves us to imitate Cicero 
 in every point, why shall we not imitate this example too ? 
 
 Hyp. — Bulephorus is speaking sense, Nosoponus. 
 
 Bu. — What of this? Did not Cicero himself teach that the 
 height of art was to conceal art ? ^'' Friget enim, et fide caret, ac 
 velut insidiosa timetur oratis, quae significationem artis dedit. 
 Qnis enim ah eo non metuat, qui fucuni et vim parat animis 
 nostris?" And so if we should want to imitate Cicero successfully, 
 the fact that we are imitating must carefully be hidden. But he 
 who never departs from Cicero's lines, who follows him in words, 
 figures, rhythms, imitating things unworthy of imitation, as the 
 pupils of Plato imitated their teacher by contracting their 
 shoulders, as the disciples of Aristotle copied a sort of stutter- 
 
 i"I", he says, "as a Matine bee ctdling the liquid from the pleasing thyme wearily mid 
 groves and on the banks of the tawny Tiber, a tiny minstrel, fashion toilsome lays." 
 
 2 For speech is unconvincing and untrustworthy, and shunned as dangerous, which 
 makes a show of art. Who woiild not shrink from one who tries to deceive ? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 47 
 
 ing which he is reputed to have had — will he ever, for the very 
 reason that he shows plainly his desire to imitate, have the credit 
 of speaking his mind or gain any reputation? He may be as 
 fortunate as writers of centos who please perhaps for a Httle 
 while and only the idlers, but who do not teach or move or 
 persuade. This is his highest praise, "He understands Vergil 
 well, he has fashioned a mosaic with such care." 
 
 No. — The more manifest the imitation, the more I shall be 
 regarded a Ciceronian. This is my greatest wish. 
 
 Bu. — You are right, if we are seeking eloquence for display, 
 not for use. But there is a very great difference between an 
 actor and an orator. The one needs only to please, the other 
 desires also to profit, provided he is a good man; and if he is 
 not good, he cannot claim the name of orator. Already I have 
 shown, I think, that some things in Cicero ought not to be 
 imitated, that some are wanting, and that some are not as good 
 as can be found in more successful authors. But let us grant 
 that there is no kind of embellishment in which he does not 
 either rival or surpass others: to be sure in some authors one 
 beauty, in others another stands out more prominently on ac- 
 count of its rare occurrence, while in Cicero these are lost in 
 the wealth of ornamentation, just as you will find more easily 
 a certain star which you seek, if the stars are far apart than if 
 the whole sky is studded, or as the individual gems on a garment 
 will impress you less, if you see an entire garment covered with 
 gems. 
 
 No. — He who absolutely absorbs all of Cicero can give forth 
 nothing but Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — We come back to the same point. I will acknowledge 
 him eloquent who copies Cicero successfully; but he must copy 
 him as a whole and his very faults too. I will put up with that 
 suggestion of emptiness, that stroking of the chin with the left 
 hand, the long and thin neck, the continual straining of the 
 voice, the unbecoming and unmanly nervousness as he begins to 
 speak, the excessive number of jokes, and everything else which 
 in Cicero is displeasing to himself or to others, provided only he 
 copy those other traits too by which he concealed these or com- 
 pensated for them. 
 
 No. — I hope that I may attain this before I die. 
 
48 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — That is just what I am trying to do, Nosoponus. You 
 see how much he covers in how few words who spyeaks of Cicero 
 in his entirety. But O Muses ! how little of Cicero do those apes 
 bring us, who show us only the surface, or rather the veneer of 
 Cicero by a few words, phrases, tropes, and endings of periods, 
 collected here and there. In this way, formerly, certain ones 
 tried to reproduce the Attic style of oratory ; but it mattered not 
 that they were dry, jejune, cold, and always, as the saying is, 
 held their hand under their mantles; they could never in any 
 degree attain either the simplicit}-, the saneness, or the grace of 
 the writers of the Attic school. With perfect justice ^Quintilian 
 ridicules those who wished to be considered Cicero's own broth- 
 ers because they ended a period several times with the words, 
 esse videatiir — a phrase repeatedly used by Cicero whenever the 
 period was rather elaborately developed, especially in the 
 opening sentences of his early works. And a good many 
 now are very proud and count themselves, as they say, 
 second Ciceros, if the first word of the oration is quamquam or 
 etsi or animadverti or quum or si, because Cicero begins his De 
 OiRciis with Quamquam te Marce Uli, and takes full nine lines 
 for the first sentence ; his Pro lege Manilia with Quamquam mihi 
 semper; that much praised speech. Pro Milone, with Et si vereor, 
 judices; the twelth Philippic with Etsi minime decere videtur; 
 and also the Pro C. Rabirio with Etsi Quirites; and several let- 
 ters in the same way. Probably these persons attribute to Cicero 
 the work dedicated to Herennius because the book begins with 
 Etsi. The fifth book of De Finibus begins Quum audii'issem 
 Antiochum, Brute. The Tusculanae Quaestiones begin Quum 
 defensionum laboribus; and the fourth book of the same work, 
 Quum multis in locis nostrorum hominum ingenia. Pro L. Flac- 
 co begins Quum in maximis periculis. Likewise Pro Dome suo 
 ad Pontifices begins Qnum multa divinitus. Again Pro Plancio, 
 quum propter egregiam. The first book of De Katura Deorum, 
 Quum multae res in Philosophia; and the Scipionis Somnium, 
 Quum Multae res in Africa. Pro Rabirio, Animadverti. judices. 
 Again Ad Brutus de Paradoxis Stoicorum, Animadverti, Brute. 
 Pro L. Cornelio Balbo begins Si auctoritas patronorum; Pro 
 Publio Sestio, Si quis antea judices; Pro Caecinna, Si quantum 
 in agro; Pro Archia Poeta, Si quid est in me ingenii; In Fatinium 
 
 ilnst. Orator. X, t. ;*. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 49 
 
 Testem, Si tua tantummodo Vatini; " To the Knights when he 
 was on the point of going into exile," Si quando inimicorum; 
 " To the Senate, after his return," Si P. C. vestris; Pro Marco 
 Caelio, Si quis judices; De Provinciis Consularibus, Si quis 
 vestrum, P. C. What could be more ridiculous and more unlike 
 Cicero than to confine the introduction of a speech to such words 
 as these ! If any one should ask Cicero why he began with these 
 words, he would, I think, make the same reply that in the Blessed 
 Isles Homer made to Lucian's query as to why he began the Iliad 
 with the word ju.^vii' (for this question had troubled Grammar- 
 ians for many ages). ^" Because," said Homer, " that word at 
 the moment happened to occur to me '' Of like effrontery are 
 those who think themselves ultra Ciceronians because at different 
 times they prop themselves on these phrases: etiam atque etiam 
 used for vehementer ; majorum in modum for valde; indentidem 
 for subinde; quum and turn whenever there are things of un- 
 equal weight to join, turn and turn when equal; tuorum in me 
 meritorum. Quid quaeris for in summa or breviter; and Non 
 solum peto, verum, etiam oro contendoque. Ante hac dilexisse 
 tantum, nunc etiam amiare mihi videor. Valetudinem tuam cura, 
 et me, ut facis, ama. Non ille quidem vir malus, sed parum 
 diligens, in which last phrase Cicero seemed so to delight that 
 you may find it repeatedly on the same page. Likewise when by 
 the pronoun ilhid he indicates not what precedes but what soon 
 follows. And if perchance in his letters Cicero has said occas- 
 ionally, cogitabam in Tusculanum, then he considers himself a 
 Ciceronian who repeatedly says, Romam cogitabam, instead of 
 what he means, in cmimo habebam, or statueram proHcisci Romam. 
 Cicero does not date his letters by the year, only by the day of 
 the month. Then a person will not be a Ciceronian, will he, if 
 he dates the year from the birth of Christ, which is often neces- 
 sary and always useful ? These same persons do not permit one, 
 as a courtesy, to put the name of the one to whom he writes be- 
 fore his own ; for example, Carolo Caesari Codrus Urceus salu- 
 tum. And they consider it as great a fault if one adds to a 
 proper name any word of dignity or honor, as " Velius greets 
 Ferdinand the Great, King of Pannonia and BoTiemia." They 
 cannot pardon Pliny the Younger because he uses the word suum 
 in addressing a letter to a friend, simply because no example of 
 
 •Verae Historiae II. 
 
so Ciceronianus 
 
 this kind is extant in Cicero. They refuse the title to one who 
 follows the model which some scholars have borrowed frcMn The 
 Duties of Princes and have recently begun to adopt ; viz, to place 
 at the beginning the main point of the letter which they are pre- 
 paring to answer, because this has never been done by Cicero. I 
 have known some to be criticised as guilty of a solecism because 
 instead of S. D. in the salutation they placed S. P. D., that is, 
 salutem plurimatn dicit, which was said not to be in Cicero. And 
 some think that even this little thing is Ciceronian, to put the salu- 
 tation on the back of the letter instead of the front because the 
 carrier is thus told without omitting the courtesy of salutation 
 which letter he is to deliver to each person. Such a littie thing 
 causes us to lose the palm of glory? Indeed far from a Ciceronian 
 is he who uses in the salutation this formula, Hilarius Bertulphus, 
 Levino Panagatho totius hominis salutem, aut salutem perpetuam; 
 and farther the one who begins his letter Gratia, pax, et miseri- 
 cordia a Deo Patre, et Domino Jesu Christo or instead of cura ut 
 recte valeas, closes it with Sospitet te Dominus Jesus or Incolu- 
 men te servet Dominus totius salutis auctor. WTiat peals of laugh- 
 ter, what jeers would the Ciceronians raise at this! And what 
 offence? Are they not Latin words, beautiful, well-sounding,! 
 even splendid? If you should consider the sense, how much 
 more there is in them than in Salutem dicit and bene vale? A 
 master shows this courtesy to a slave, an enemy to an enemy. 
 But who would regjird dicit illi salutem and jubet ilium solvere 
 as good Latin if it were not Classic usage? This, at the be- 
 ginning of the letter. Now, at the close, we say z'ole even to 
 those whom we wish ill. How much more significance in the 
 phrases used by Christians, provided we are true Christians! 
 Gratia implies the voluntary giving up of wrongs done; pax, 
 quiet and joy of conscience because God is gracious ; misercordia, 
 varying gifts of body and mind with which the kindness of the 
 mysterious Spirit enriches his own, and when we wish to express 
 our hope more clearly that these may be lasting we add A Deo 
 Patre et Domino nostra Jesu Christo. WTien you hear Father 
 you lay aside servile fear, admitted into the love of the Son; 
 when you hear Lord, you grow strong against the strength of 
 Satan. Nor will he desert you, because he has purchased you 
 so dearly and he alone is more powerful than all the cohorts of 
 Satan. What sweeter than these words to one who feels that 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 51 
 
 these blessings are already his! What more useful than this 
 admonition to one who has not yet entered into this love! And 
 so while in choice of words we are not surpassed, but rather 
 surpass; in sense we far excel. There remains to be considered 
 the element of beauty and fitness which is most desirable. And 
 how much more these modem phrases suit the Christian than 
 the salutem dicit and euro ut valeas of the Romans ! 
 
 But you say, "Away with these childish imaginations, for Cicero 
 did not use such phrases." ^^'^hat wonder he did not when he did 
 not know them ! How many thousands of things there are in our 
 ever)- day conversation of which Cicero did not even dream? 
 But if he were alive he would use the same phrases. Are we 
 not indifferent imitators if we copy Cicero by the observance 
 of such trivial things as rhythms, tropes, phrases, which pleased 
 Cicero or fell frequently from his lips and neglect so many ex- 
 cellent qualities? Perhaps these things do not interest you, 
 Nosoponus, but, inasmuch as we happened to be talking of 
 imitators of Cicero, it did not seem amiss to speak of them. 
 Such people ought to be equally distasteful to us and to Cicero: 
 because we who are trying to be Ciceronians are drawn by them 
 into jest and gossip and are rated by their stupidity; whUe 
 Cicero, as we have said before, is dishonored by such imitators 
 just as a good teacher is dishonored by bad pupils or a reputable 
 man by unprincipled children or a beautiful woman by a poor 
 artist. Quintilian understood this when he ^complained that 
 Seneca was being dishonored by the immoderate zeal of those 
 who imitated merely his faults, causing people who had not 
 read Seneca to judge of him by their writings. Just as none 
 boast more of their teachers and ancestors than the poor pupils 
 and wa)rward sons, grasping at a reputation from any source 
 since they cannot win it through their own good qualities; so 
 none exult more immoderately in the name of Cicero than those 
 who are most unlike him. I have known physicians markedly 
 unskilled in the art they professed, in order to increase their 
 income, to boast that they were pupils of some celebrated doctor 
 whom they had scarcely seen; and, when asked why contrary to 
 medical practice they gave this or that to a patient, would answer 
 roughly, "Are you more learned than so and so? He is my 
 authority." And yet they imitate practically nothing except 
 
 'Inst. Orator. X. t. x. 
 
0- 
 
 Ciceronianus 
 
 what ought to be avoided; as for instance, too great sternness 
 and peevishness in answering questioners or too much severity 
 in exacting pay. What feelings do you think that illustrious 
 physician would have toward such pupils? 
 
 Hyp. — No doubt he would be very bitter, unless he had ab- 
 solutely no regard for his reputation. 
 
 Bu. — What feelings would the real and genuine pupils of the 
 same doctor have? 
 
 H}^. — ^Just as bitter, because they would suflFer the same 
 reputation as this boastful imposter had established. But if you 
 will permit me to interrupt, I will give you an illustration of this. 
 
 Bu. — Certainly. 
 
 Hj'p. — Some one happens to see Erasmus ^\Titing with a reed 
 pen to which is fastened a piece of wood; he begins at once to 
 fasten a stick to his pen and thinks he is writing in the style of 
 Erasmus. But go on. 
 
 Bu. — What you say is well said and to the point But I will 
 resume. Do we not hear fathers scolding their ill-mannered 
 sons, "You disgrace me in the eyes of my feUow-citizens; yon 
 have dimmed the images of your ancestors; I am ashamed of 
 such children; if you go on I shall disown you?" Do we not in 
 like manner sometimes hear a man, angry at his brother, declar- 
 ing that his reputation is injured by the brothers wicked ways? 
 Cicero no doubt feels the same toward his ridiculous apes, 
 and so ought we who desire to be considered yvijo-ia Tocwa.' 
 
 No. — In a matter so splendid to be even a shadow is worth 
 while. 
 
 Bu. — It may be something worth while for those who are 
 satisfied to be called shadows of Cicero, but I have no desire 
 to be called a shadow even of ApoUo. I should prefer to be a 
 living Crassus than a shadow of Cicero. But to return, suppose 
 we assume that some one does copy Cicero exactlv in words, 
 figures, rhythms (which thing itself I doubt if many can do), 
 how much will he have of Cicero? Suppose he is as good in 
 imitating Cicero as was Zeuxis in portraying the feminine form. 
 Zeuxis reproduced the form, the coloring, the age and — a sign 
 of the highest workmanship — something of the mood; that is, 
 of grief, joy, anger, fear, intentness, sleep. He who has shown 
 these, has he not reached the limit of what art can do? As far 
 
 1 His tnae sons. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 53 
 
 as was possible he put a living life into a mute statue. Nothing 
 more could be asked of a painter. You recognize the form of 
 the one who has been painted, you see the age and the mood, 
 perhaps even the condition of health, and besides, as we have 
 read, the ph3rsiognomist recognizes the disposition, the habits, 
 and the length of Ufe. And yet how far it falls short of a living 
 being? ^^'hat can be seen on the surface is represented; but 
 since a human being consists of soul and body, how Uttle there 
 is in this of even one half of him and ^hat the worse? ^Tiere 
 is the brain, the flesh, the veins, the musdes and bones, the 
 intestines, the blood, the breath and the phl^pm, life, movement, 
 sense, voice and speech, and what belong to man peculiarly — 
 mind, talent, memory, judgment? Just as these, the chief es- 
 sentials of man, cannot be portrayed by the painter; so we can- 
 not affect the highest virtues of the orator but must get them 
 from ourselves. Indeed nothing else is required of a painter 
 except that he portray what his art professes; but of us some- 
 thing quite difiFerent is required if we wish fully to represent 
 Cicero. If oxu" representation is devoid of life, of action, of 
 mood, of muscles and bones what could be more indifferent? 
 Still it will be much more ridiculous, if, by great effort we make 
 the reader recognize that we have read Cicero because of swell- 
 ings, of warts, of scars, or some deformity of limb in our repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 Hyp. — A certain painter of this kind was but recently a source 
 of amusement to us. He had engaged to paint our friend, 
 Murius, and since he could not paint the true form of the man, 
 he looked about if he had anj-thing noteworthy on his body or 
 clothes. He began in the summer and had already for the most 
 part finished the picture, had painted a ring which he was wear- 
 ing, a purse and girdle, and had carefully copied the felt cap 
 on his head. Then he noticed that on the finger of his left 
 hand there was a scar; this he represented with studied care. 
 Then on the right wrist he found a large swelling and painted 
 that On the left eyebrow he put some hairs in different direc- 
 tions. On the cheek too he put a scar, the mark of a wound. 
 Time went on and he had many sittings. If, when he came, he 
 saw that the beard had been shaved, he painted a new chin; 
 again if he saw that the beard had grown out he changed the 
 chin, because that pleased him more. Between times a slight 
 
\ 
 
 54 Ciceronianus 
 
 fever seized Murius which, as is usual, left a sore on his lip; 
 the painter portrayed this. At length winter came, another cap 
 was put on; he changed the picture. Winter clothing of furs 
 was put on, he painted a new dress. Cold changed the com- 
 plexion and as usual shrunk the skin, he changed the entire 
 skin. A rheum broke out which affected the left eye and made 
 the nose somewhat larger and very much redder, he painted a 
 new eye and a new nose. If ever he saw him uncombed, he 
 ruffled up the hair. If percliance Murius was sleeping while 
 he painted, he represented him sleeping. If he had taken medi- 
 cine which caused relaxation, he changed the face. If he could 
 have painted the true and native form of the man, he would not 
 have taken refuge in these incidental things. And so if we 
 imitate Cicero in this way, may not Horace deservedly cry out 
 against us: 
 
 ^0 imitatores servum pecus, ut mihi saepe 
 Risum, saepe jocum vestri movere tumultusf 
 
 But suppose we have represented Cicero as successfully as 
 the consummate painter can represent his model, where is the 
 mind of Cicero, where the originality so abounding and happy, 
 where the power of arrangement, where the thinking out of 
 propositions, where the wisdom in handling arguments, where 
 the power of persuasion, the felicity, the memory so fruitful and 
 ready, the versatility, where in short that soul breathing even 
 'now in his writings, that genius, manifesting such peculiar, 
 subtle power? If these are lacking, how indifferent will be our 
 imitation ! 
 
 No. — You argue cleverly, Bulephorus, but to what end except 
 to keep young men from copying Cicero? 
 
 Bu. — Heaven forbid, Nosoponus ! My aim is rather this, that, 
 spurning the foolish harangue of certain apes, we may imitate 
 Cicero, as far as may be, both exactly and successfully. 
 
 No. — In this certainly we agree. 
 
 Bu. — Unless this be done skillfully, we shall strive diligently 
 but not very successfully and shall become most unlike Cicero. 
 For be assured that there is nothing more dangerous than to 
 
 1 Hor. Epis. I, ig. ig. O imitators, servile band, how often have your efforts moved 
 me to laughter and to mirth. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 55 
 
 aim at being the image of Cicero. Misfortune came to the giants 
 in their striving to reach the seat of Jove. Destruction came 
 through challenging the Gods. It is a work full of dangerous 
 chance, to reproduce that divine and superhuman tongue. An- 
 other Cicero may possibly be born, but none can be made. 
 
 No. — ^What are you driving at? 
 
 Bu. — Because while his virtues are the highest, they are yet 
 nearest to vices. Furthermore imitation must fail which desires 
 to follow only, not to surpass. The more zealously you aim at 
 the reproduction, the nearer you are to this vice. 
 
 No. — I do not quite understand what you mean. 
 
 Bu. — I will make you understand. Do not the doctors de- 
 clare that the best health of body is the most dangerous because 
 it is nearest to bad health? 
 
 No. — I have heard so. What next? 
 
 Bu. — Is not absolute monarchy very near to tyranny? 
 
 No. — ^They say so. 
 
 Bu. — ^And yet nothing is better than absolute monarchy with- 
 out tyranny. Again, is not great generosity a neighbor to 
 prodigality? And does not unusual rigor border on barbarity? 
 
 No. — ^Yes. 
 
 Bu. — And wit and humour, do they not approach the neigh- 
 borhood of coarseness and levity? 
 
 No. — Do not mention other instances. Take it for granted 
 I agree to all. 
 
 Bu. — First hear this quotation from Horace: 
 
 ( ^Brevis esse labor,e, 
 
 Obscurus Ho; sectantem tenia, nervi, 
 Deficiunt, animique; professus grandia turget. 
 
 Thus those who aim at the Attic style become dry instead of 
 clever and charming; at the Rhodian, diffuse; at the Asiatic, 
 bombastic. Brevity is praised in the work of Sallust. Would 
 there not be danger of becoming unduly concise and abrupt, 
 if one should try to imitate this with painful precision? 
 
 No. — Perhaps. 
 
 'Horace Ars Poetica, 25-27 
 
 I prove obscure in trying to be terse ; 
 
 Attempts at ease emasculate my verse; 
 
 Who aims at grandeur into bombast falls. — Contngton- 
 
56 Ciceranianus 
 
 Bu. — Adequacy and conciseness of language and argument 
 are exemplified in Demosthenes. 
 
 Xo. — According to Quintilian, yes. 
 
 Bu. — If any one should set himself anxiously to work to 
 imitate this, to be a Demosthenean. he would be in danger of 
 sa\-ing too little. Isocrates is praised for structure and rhythm. 
 He who strives greatly for this may weary his reader by too 
 much precision of periods and may forfeit confidence by the 
 ostentation of his art. Seneca is praised for fluency. The heed- 
 less and enthusiastic imitator runs a risk of becoming redundant 
 and extravagant instead of fluent. If you should anxiously 
 imitate the dignitj- of Brutus you would probably become austere 
 and repeUant : if the charm of Sallust. you might become foolish 
 and trivial instead of pleasing. I have known people to prate 
 weak and inane verses when tr\-ing to express that wonderful 
 facilitj- of Ovid. But not to weary you with long illustratioii, 
 I will speak in general. In some a sublety of argument is prcmii- 
 nent. One who is strongly attracted to this runs the risk of 
 becoming either cold or obscure. In others we marvel at the 
 happy disregard of art. One who strives to achieve this will 
 probably fall into a common style of speaking, or rather of 
 prating. In another there is prominent the closest observance 
 of rules. He who strives to foUow him may fall into a kind of 
 stage snle of speaking. Barrenness is nigh to Attic frugality; 
 loquacit\" to fluency. In swaying the feelings frenzy -is close 
 to sublimity just as pompositj" follows close to grandeur and 
 recklessness to confident assertion. 
 
 Xo. — I grant all you say. 
 
 Bu. — But there are some of these characteristics which are so 
 prominent in authors that they might be considered faults if 
 they were not offset by allied virtues : for example, in Seneca an 
 abruptness and a profusion of aphorisms are offset by the moral 
 purit}- of his precepts, the splendor of his themes, the charm 
 of his langTiage; in Isocrates the faults of composition are offset 
 by clearness and weight of thought. 
 
 Xo. — ^AU you have said is true, but I do not yet see what you 
 are driving at. 
 
 Bu. — ^At just this. Inasmuch as there are in the single person 
 of Cicero so many of these qualities, an exact and slavish imita- 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 57 
 
 tion of him seems dangerous to me, for we cannot imitate the 
 virtues which either adorn or conceal them. 
 
 No. — What, pray, do you mean by this? 
 
 Bu. — His diction is so fluent that he might be criticised at 
 times as loose and free; so exuberant that he could be called 
 redundant; so rhetorical that he seems a declaimer, at the ex- 
 pense of fidelity seeking the glory of the workman, rather than 
 an orator; so free in censure that he couM be- held malicious; so 
 immoderate in jesting that as consul he seemed ridiculous to 
 Cato; so flattering that he seems humble; so orderly that by 
 rather severe critics he might be called weak and unmanly. And 
 though we acknowledge that in Cicero these are not faults on 
 account of that remarkably happy nature to which everything 
 he does is becoming, that they are even virtues; yet they are 
 found in him in such a form that before a prejudiced judge they 
 would surely be reckoned as faults. Still he balanced every 
 fault by so many excellent virtues that whoever tries to find 
 fault with anything in Cicero's style is by common consent con- 
 sidered a bold slanderer. We do not hope to imitate these 
 virtues; and if we believe Quintilian, they are inimitable and 
 cannot be gained from example or precept but only from native 
 genius. If native genius is lacking, what sort of imitation will 
 there be of those qualities which we have mentioned? There- 
 fore, we conclude that imitation of no one is more dangerous 
 than of Cicero, not only because he is the greatest orator and 
 most talented (for which reason Horace advises against the imi- 
 tation of Pindar, citing the fate of Icarus), but also because 
 there are many things in him so perfect that they are very nigh 
 to faults. Hence the danger of failure. 
 
 No. — But we agreed that the especially splendid qualities were 
 most fit for imitation ; for though we fall short somewhat of our 
 ideal, yet we gain the reputation of correct speech. 
 
 Bu. — It is one thing to reproduce the same efifects, but another 
 thing to give like efifects; one thing to have a rule, but another 
 to be a slave to it and follow nothing else. In short, he fails to 
 reproduce his model who does not reproduce also the qualities 
 which bar criticism. And Quintilian points out that these in 
 Cicero are almost inimitable even by those who are fortunate 
 enough to be geniuses. 
 
58 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — I do not admit to the contest any except the most extra- 
 ordinary and divine geniuses. Add unremitting zeal to this 
 native ability and there will be hope of imitating Cicero suc- 
 cessfully. 
 
 Bu. — Perhaps, but so few that they are not worth considering. 
 You know there are some clever people that distinguish between 
 imitation and emulation. They say that imitation looks toward 
 likeness, but emulation looks toward superiority. And so if you 
 put before you Cicero, entire and alone, with the view not only 
 of copying him but of excelling him, you must not merely over- 
 take him but you must outstrip him; otherwise if you wish to 
 add to his fullness of expression, you will become redundant; 
 if to his freedom you will become pert; if to his jests you will 
 become scurrilous; if to his style you will become a poet instead 
 of an orator. Therefore, if you should desire to equal Cicero, 
 you would run the risk of speaking worse because you cannot 
 attain, though doubtless you have attained other things, the 
 divine virtues of this man with which he offsets those things 
 which are either faults or very nigh to faults; and if you try to 
 surpass him also, even if you equal him in those things for which 
 you have native ability, yet whatever you add will be faulty, 
 since it seems truly to have been declared that nothing can be 
 added to Cicero's eloquence, as in the case of Demosthenes 
 nothing can be subtracted. You see, Nosoponus, the risk. 
 
 No. — The risk does not at all frighten me provided at last I 
 may attain the name, Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — If you scorn all I've said, there is another cause for 
 anxiety, which disturbs me more, if it will not bore you to listen. 
 
 No. — It is your privilege. 
 
 Bu. — Do you think the man deserves to be called eloquent 
 who does not speak appropriately? 
 
 No. — Not at all, inasmuch as this is the first requisite of an 
 orator. 
 
 Bu. — Whence is true propriety? Is it not partly from the sub- 
 ject, partly from the character of the speaker and the listener, 
 partly from place, time, and other circilmstances? 
 
 No. — Certainly. 
 
 Bu. — Furthermore do you not expect a Ciceronian to be an 
 illustrious orator? 
 
 No.— Why not? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 59 
 
 Bu. — ^Then one will not be a Ciceronian if he discourses in 
 the theater on the paradoxes of the Stoics and on the subtilities 
 of Chrysippus; or if he indulges in witticisms in the presence of 
 the Areopagites when a man is on trial for his life; or if he 
 speaks of cooking in words and figures of the tragic poets. 
 
 No. — He will be as ridiculous an orator as if in tragic dress 
 he danced in the Atellan farce; or put a yellow robe on a cat, 
 as the saying goes ; or purple upon the ape ; or adorned Bacchus 
 or Sardanapalus with the skin of a lion and the club of Hercules. 
 For the deed merits no praise, however magnificent in itself, if 
 it is out of place. 
 
 Bu. — Exactly so. Therefore, Cicero, who in his own age had 
 no rival, would not have excelled if he had spoken in like fashion 
 in the age of Cato the Censor, of Scipio, or of Ennius. 
 
 No. — Ears accustomed to harsher sounds would not have 
 suffered, to be sure, that ornamental and rhythmical kind of 
 diction. For their speech corresponded to the manners of their 
 times. 
 
 Bu. — Then you say that style is the dress of the ideas? 
 
 No. — Yes, unless you like better to call it the picture. 
 
 Bu. — Well, a dress which is becoming to a boy is not be- 
 coming to an old man; one suitable for a woman is not suitable 
 for a man; what is meet for a wedding is not meet for a funeral; 
 nor would fashions of a hundred years ago be approved of today. 
 
 No. — No, they would be received with general hissings and 
 laughter. Look at the dress of the court ladies and nobles in 
 pictures painted perhaps sixty years ago. If anyone should 
 appear anywhere in public now in this dress, boys and knaves 
 would throw rotten apples at him. 
 
 Bu. — You speak the truth, indeed. For who now would en- 
 dure respectable women to wear horns, pyramids, very tall cones 
 standing out on their heads, foreheads and temples bald, hair skil- 
 fully plucked almost to the middle of the head; and men to wear 
 bulging caps with great tails hanging down, borders of clothing 
 notched, swelling humps on the shoulders, hair shaved the width 
 of two fingers above the ears, garments far too short to extend 
 to the knees scarcely covering the loins, high topped boots with 
 silver chains bound round from knee to heel. Nor at that time 
 would have been less curious the dress which is now considered 
 respectable. 
 
6o Cicero >i ia nus 
 
 Xo. — We agree about dress. 
 
 Bu. — ^\Vill you not grant that Apelles, who was counted the 
 best painter of his age would be said to paint badly, if he 
 should return now and should paint the Germans as he formeriy 
 painted the Greeks, and kings as he formerly painted Alexander? 
 
 Xo. — Badly because inappropriately. 
 
 Bu. — If one should paint God the Father in such a dress as 
 Apelles painted Jove or Christ as he painted Apollo, would j'ou 
 accept the picture? 
 
 Xo. — Xot at alL 
 
 Bu. — ^^'hat if some one should today portray the Virgin 
 ^Mother as ApeUes portrayed Diana, or the Holy \'irgin as he 
 painted \enus Anadyomene celebrated in all literature, or Saint 
 Thekla as he painted Lais, would you say that he was like 
 Apelles? 
 
 X'o. — I suppose not 
 
 Bu. — And if anyone should adorn our temples with statues 
 like those with which Lysippus adorned the temples of the Gods, 
 would you say that he was like Lysippus? 
 
 X'o. — I shotdd not. 
 
 Bu. — Why not? 
 
 Xo. — Because the statues would not fit the subjeicts. I should 
 say the same if any one should paint an ass in the guise of a 
 gazelle or a hawk with the figure of a cuckoo, even if he should 
 expend in other respects the greatest care and skUl on the picture. 
 
 Hyp. — Xor should I call him a clever painter who would make 
 a deformed man beautiful. 
 
 Bu. — ^What if he should in some other vra.y show great artistic 
 power? 
 
 H}-p. — I should not say that the picture was void of art but 
 that it was untrue. For he could have painted it otherwise if 
 he had wished but he preferred either to flatter his model or to 
 make sport of him. Come now, do you think him an honest 
 workman ? 
 
 X'^o. — He certainly has not shown that he is. 
 
 Bu. — ^Then do you think him a good man? 
 
 X'o. — Xeither a good workman, nor a good man, since, in- 
 deed, it is the height of art to represent things as they are. 
 
 Bu. — ^To do this, there is no especial need of Ciceronian 
 eloquence ; for our rhetoricians grant to eloquence the license to 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 6i 
 
 lie, to exalt the lowly, to cast down the haughty (which surely 
 is a kind of legerdemain) to steal by strategy into the minds of 
 the listener, and finally by appealing to the emotions — which is 
 a kind of sorcery — to force conviction. 
 
 No. — True, when the listener deserves to be deceived. 
 
 Bu. — But let us omit these more irrelevant things. It is 
 enough for my purpose that you do not approve of the in- 
 appropriate dress, that you condemn the flattering picture. 
 
 No. — But what end have these Socratic importations 
 {turayiiyyai) of yours in view? 
 
 Bu. — I was plainly coming to this point, namely, that we agree 
 in thinking that Cicero speaks best of all. 
 
 No. — We do. 
 
 Bu. — And that this most noble name of Ciceronian is not 
 deserved unless one can speak as Cicero does. 
 
 No. — Precisely. 
 
 Bu. — ^And that he does not even speak well whose language 
 is inappropriate. 
 
 No. — We agree in that too. 
 
 Bu. — Further, that we speak fittingly only when our speech is 
 consistent with the persons and conditions of present day life. 
 
 No. — Of course. 
 
 Bu. — Well then, do the present conditions agree with those of 
 the time when Cicero lived and spoke, considering our absolutely 
 different religion, government, laws, customs, occupations, the 
 very face of the men? 
 
 No. — No, not at alL 
 
 Bu. — What effrontery then would he have who should insist 
 that we speak, on all occasions, as Cicero did? Let him bring 
 back to us first that Rome which was; let him give us the 
 Senate and the senate house, the Conscript Fathers, the Knights, 
 the people in tribes and centuries; let him give back the college 
 of augurs and soothsayers, the chief priests, the flamens and 
 vestals, the aediles, praetors, tribunes of the people, consuls, 
 dictators, Caesars, the assemblies, laws, decrees of the senate, 
 plebiscites, statues, triumphs, ovations, thanksgivings, shrines, 
 sanctuaries, feasts of the gods, sacred rites, gods and goddesses, 
 the Capitol, and sacred fire ; let him give back the provinces, the 
 colonies, the municipal town, and the allies of the city which was 
 mistress of the world. Then, since -on every hand the entire 
 
(u Cici'iotiidims 
 
 sionc of lliin,y;s is oliaii^i'il, vvIk) oai\ today spoaU (itlinj^ly unless 
 ho is unlii<e L'iciMo? 'i'liorcfdiv, it sooiiis Id mo that iMiv ar(jfn- 
 niont hiiiiys us Id a dilToroiit couohision. N'oii say that no one 
 oau spoak with proprioty unloss ho oopy Ciooro; but tlie (act 
 itsol[ convinces us (hat lui mio can si)oak woll unless he wisely 
 wilhih-avv from tiio oxanipio of C'iooro. Wherever I turn 1 see 
 thiuj's chani;oii, I stand on another staj>o, 1 see anotlier theater, 
 yes, another world. What shall I do? I, a I'hristian, must 
 spoak to Ciiristians about the Christian rehj;ion. In order that 
 I may spoak fittingly, shall 1 imaj^ine that I am living in the 
 af>o of Ciooro and speaking in a crowded senate in tlie presence 
 of liie senators on the Tarj^eian ]\ock? And siiall 1 borrow 
 words, figures, rhythms from the orations which t'icoro delivered 
 in the Senate? 1 nuist adih-oss a |)romisout)ns erowd in which 
 tlioro are young women, wives, and widows; I nuist speak of 
 fasting, of repentance, of the fruits of prayer, tlie utility of alms, 
 the sanctity of marria>;e, the eontempt of chan(;in(>- things, the 
 study of the Divine Word. How will the eUM|nonce of ficero 
 help mo hero to whom the themes as well as the vocabulary 
 were unknown? Will not an orator he cold who sews, as it 
 were, patches taken from Cicero upon his (.^armoins? 
 
 1 shall not repeat rumors but what I have heard with my own 
 ears, seen with my eyes, 'inhere flourished when 1 was in Rome 
 I'etrus IMiaodrus, most eolohrated in olo(|uoneo, and Caniillus, 
 yonnj^er but j^roaloi' in power of ox|)rossion, save tiial Phaeilrus 
 had .-droady j^aincd the heiuhl of this distinotion, liiU neither 
 of those, if 1 am n()t mistaken, was a Uoman by birth. Now an 
 invitation was extended lo ai\y one who would si)o;d< of the 
 death of Cin-ist on the holy ilay which they call the day of 
 ])ieparalion, in the presence of the iVjpc. Some days befi)re I 
 was invited by some U'arned men to listen to this or.alion. "He 
 sure to 1)0 there," they said, "now at last you will hear how 
 Roman speech sounds on Roman lijis." I went oan'orly, 1 stood 
 next to the platform, not to lose anything-. Julius II was i)resenl 
 in person, a tiling;- which very rarely hai)|)ened, on ;icconnt, I 
 think, of his health. A crowded assembly of cardinals and 
 bishops was there and many scholars who were then living in 
 Rome, besides the c(jnunon throng;'. I shall n<U mention the 
 u;uno of the siioakor, lest I shonki seem to cast reflection on a 
 respectable and learned man. lie thought as you do now, 
 
A Dialogiu on the Best Style of SpeaJmig 63 
 
 Nosiqioiiiis, and was no doubt a candidate tar Ckanmnamsm. 
 The introduction and peroration, kHiger almost than the real 
 sennon, were occcqpied in proclaiming the praises of Julias II, 
 iriHHn he called Tiq>ita' Optimns Maximos holding and biandish- 
 ii^ in his poweital light hand the three-deft and fatal thnnder- 
 bok and causing by a mere nod whatever he wished. AU thai 
 had been done in France, Germany, ^ain, Portugal, Africa, and 
 (deece, he declared, had been done by fhe will of Julias alone. 
 So spcke at Rome a Roman in Roman tongue and Roman style. 
 But what had this characterization to do with Jufius, the high 
 priest of the Christian re]i^;i<ni, Ticergerent of Christ, successor 
 (A Peter and Paul? What with cardinals and bislM^>s po^rm- 
 ing the duties of the other apostles? Could any theme be more 
 sacied, more real, more wondofnl, more suUime, better fitted 
 to move the fedings than the one which he had undertaken to 
 {wesoiL Could not any man, furnished widi any kind of elo- 
 quence on this subject move even men of stone t^ tears? This 
 I was the plan of the discourse: — first to dq>ict the death of Christ 
 as sad, then, with a turn of words, to describe it as gkHioos and 
 triumphant intending <rf coarse to exhibit to as an example of 
 Cicennian Sa»ira«5* "by which he coald sway the minds of the 
 listeners in any way he wished. 
 
 Hy. — ^Well, did he succeed? 
 
 Bu. — ^To be honest, I wanted to laugh when he gave expres- 
 9on to that tragic feeling wUdi rhetoricians callnlfif-* I 
 did not see a single man in that whide assonUy a whit 
 sadder when he enlarged with all the strength of doquence 
 iq>on the undeserved pumshmoits of the innocent Christ. Xor 
 ^ain any one a bit more joyfal when he was whcdly absorbed 
 in pcHtraying to us that death triuiiq>hant, praiseworthy, and 
 gkmous. He called to mind the Deai and Ouintus Curtins who 
 had sacrificed themsdves fc»r the safety of the Repubfic; Cecrops. 
 Menoetius, Iphigenia, and several others to whom the safety and 
 d^nity of their fotheriand had been dearer than life itsdf: he 
 dqtkned too very dolefully that, while gratitude had beoi shown 
 by public decrees to iKave men who had aided the RepubUc at 
 dieir own risk — to some by a golden statue erected in the forum, 
 to odiers bv divine honors decreed — Christ in return for his 
 
 >Pa&os. 
 
64 Ciceronianus 
 
 benefactions at the hands of the ungrateful Jews had borne the 
 cross, enduring hardships and the deepest disgrace. And thus 
 he deplored the death of that good and innocent man who 
 merited the best from his race as he would have deplored the 
 death of Socrates or Phocion, who, though they had committed 
 no crime, were compelled through the ingratitude of their fellow- 
 citizens to drink the hemlock; or of Epaminondas who on ac- 
 count of his brilliant campaigns was comptelled to plead for his 
 life before his people: or of Scipio who after so many ser%-ices 
 to the RepiyibUc went out to exile; or of Aristides whom the 
 people of Athens ordered to go into exile ofifended because he 
 was called just on account of his great integrity of character. I 
 ask what could be more unconvincing or more inappropriate than 
 this? And yet in strength he emulated Cicero. But no mention 
 of the secret plan of the omnipotent Father to redeem the human 
 race from the tyrrany of the devil by the unparallelled death of 
 his only son nor of the mysteries — ^what it is to die with Girist, 
 to be buried with him, with him to rise again. The suffering of 
 the innocent Christ was deplored; the ingratitude of the Jews 
 held up to scorn: but no mention of the Ul-will and ingratitude 
 of those of us who, though thus redeemed, thus enriched by so 
 many blessings, and called forth to such happiness through un- 
 heard of kindness, in return, so far as in us Ues, crucify him by 
 returning to the tyranny of Satan, becoming slaves to a\-arice, 
 luxury, ambition, given more to this world than ever were the 
 heathens, to whom God had not yet opened up this celestial 
 philosophy. When he was struggling to transport us with joy, 
 I wished rather to weep upon hearing the triumphs of Sdpio, 
 of Paulus Aemilius, of Caius Caesar and of the deified Emperors 
 compared with the triumph of the cross. If he had wished to 
 glorify Christ, he ought to have emulated the apostle Paul 
 rather than Cicero, who exults, is lifted up with pride, conquers, 
 triumphs, looks from above with disdain upon all things earthly 
 whenever he touches upon the preaching of the Cross. But 
 why make a long story? In so Roman a fashion spoke that 
 Roman that I heard nothing about the death of Christ. And 
 yet, he was a most ambitious candidate for Ciceronian eloquence 
 and seemed to the Ciceronians to have spoken wonderfulh', 
 though he said almost nothing on the subject which he seemed 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 65 
 
 neither to know nor to care for, nothing' to the point, and moved 
 no ones fedings. He merited only this praise that he had 
 spoken like a Roman and had reproduced something of Cicero. 
 The speech could have been approved as a specimen of talent 
 and genius, if it had been delivered by a school boy; but what 
 good was it for such a day, before such auditors, and on such 
 a theme, I pray? 
 
 Xo. — Yon will not tell the name of the speaker? 
 
 Bu. — ^I prefer not, for I have not intended to cast aspersion 
 iqx)n the name of any but to show an error to be avoided which 
 deceives not a few today under the shadow of a splendid name. 
 This mistaken idea is ci interest to us, Nosoponus; the name 
 of the man of whom I have told the stOr\- matters not at all. 
 Moreover, this misapprehension also concerns the glory of 
 Gcero, whom I see you faivor beyond measure, whom all the 
 learned men of the world justly favor; for these apes not only 
 exert a harmful influence upon youth but also dishonor Cicero 
 by the help of whose name they glorify themselves though they 
 ""are anjnhing but Ciceronians. Just as men dishonor St. Bene- 
 dict by boasting' themselves Benedictines when in dress, in title, 
 and in life they approach nearer Sardanapalus than St. Benedict; 
 and St. Francis — that man incapable of ill-will — ^when they boast 
 of his name though they represent in their characters more 
 nearly the Pharisees; and St. Augustine when they say that 
 'diey are Aogostinians though they are far removed from the 
 doctrine as weU as the piety- of so great a man; and possibly 
 Christ when they have nothing of him except the title: so men 
 feast a blot on the fame of Cicero who have nothing on their 
 tongues except Cicero and Ciceronians, when none are farther 
 from the eloquence of Gcero than they. Wonderful how they 
 criticise the crudeness of St. Thomas Aquinas, of Duns Scotus, 
 of Dorandus, and such men! And yet in all feimess these men, ' 
 Though they boast themselves neither eloquent nor Ciceronians, 
 are more Ciceronian than those who demand to be considered 
 not cmlv Ciceronians but even Ciceros. 
 
 Xo. — Strange things you telL 
 
 En. — ^Truth is not strange. Do you not acknowledge that 
 he who has great versatility is ven,- like Cicero? 
 
 Xo.— Yes. 
 
66 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — Two things are conducive to good speaking: that you 
 know your subject thoroughly, and that the heart and feelings 
 ; furnish words. 
 
 No. — ^That indeed Horace and Quintilian teach, and it is very 
 true regardless of authority; therefore I shall not attempt to 
 deny it. 
 
 Bu. — Whence then will he get the name of Ciceronian who 
 speaks of things which he neither knows thoroughly nor pursues 
 heartily and, I might say, which he clearly neglects and hates? 
 
 Hyp. — This is indeed a hard question. For how could a 
 painter, however clever a workmen, paint the figure of a man 
 whom he had never looked at carefully and perhaps had never 
 even seen? And too, you can scarcely make workmen of this 
 class express the thing skillfully, unless they are delighted with 
 the subject. 
 
 Bu. — This then must be the particular care of the Ciceronians 
 that they know the mysteries of the Christian religion and read 
 the sacred books with as much zeal as Cicero read those of the 
 philosophers, poets, augurs, historians, and jurists. It was be- 
 cause of. his thorough knowledge of these things that Cicero 
 was Cicero. If we do not touch the laws, prophets, histories, 
 commentators of our religion ; if we spurn and shrink from them, 
 how pray shall we be Ciceronians? Another point, you must 
 speak before Christians on a secular subject — ^the electing of a 
 magistrate, marriage, concluding a treaty, or undertaking war. 
 Of these things shall we Christians speak in the same way as 
 heathen Cicero spoke to the heathen? Are not all our actions 
 gauged by the rules of Christ from which if our speech departs 
 we shall be neither good orators nor good men? 
 
 Further, if the Ciceronian utters no word except from his dic- 
 tionary, what will he do when the changes of time have brought 
 new words, for he will not find those in the books of Cicero nor in 
 his own word list? If, whatever is not found in his books is dis- 
 carded, in spite of the fact that so many of his works have been 
 lost, see how many words we shall shun as barbarisms which 
 have been handed down by Cicero, and how many which he would 
 have used if he had needed to speak on subjects of this kind! 
 Never in Cicero did we see Jesus Christ, the Word of God, 
 Holy Ghost, Trinity, gospel, evangelist, Moses, prophet, pentct- 
 tench, psalms, bishop, archbishop, deacon, sub-deacon, acolyte. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 6j 
 
 exorcist, church, faith, hope and love. The Trinity, heresy, symbol, 
 the seven sacraments of the church, baptism, baptizer, confirma- 
 tion, eucharist, extreme unction, repentance, sacramental confes- 
 sion, contrition, absolution, excommunication, church burial, 
 mass, and other innumerable things in which consist the whole 
 life of Christians. These are always coming up. No matter of 
 what one tries to speak, they thrust themselves upon one. What 
 shall we do? Whither shall our painfully precise Ciceronian 
 turn? Shall he use Jupiter Optimus Maximus for the Father of 
 our Lord? For the Son, shall he say Apollo or Aesculapius? 
 For the Queen of Virgins, shall he say Diana? For heathen, 
 public enemy? .For the church shall he say sacred assembly or 
 the state or the republic? for heresy, faction? for schifm, sedi- 
 tion? for Christian faith, Christian persuasion? for excommuni- 
 cation, proscription? for to excommunicate, to devote to the 
 Furies or what will be more satisfactory to some to forbid water 
 and Are? for apostles, embassadors or couriers? for the Roman 
 Pontiff, Flamen of Jove? for an assembly of cardinals, conscript 
 ■fathers, for a generous synod, the Senate and People of the 
 Christian Republic? for bishops, defenders of the provinces? for 
 the elections of the bishops, the comitia? for the synod's ordi- 
 nances, the decree of the senate? for the Pope, the chief prefect 
 of the state? for Christ the head of the Church, the highest 
 guardian of the Republic? for the devil, sychophant? for prophet, 
 soothsayer or diviner?, for prophecies, oracles of the gods? for 
 baptism, dipping a victim? for mass, a sacrifice? for consecration 
 of the Lord's body, consecrated bread? for the eucharist, the 
 sanctifying of bread? for the priest, a sacrificing priest or a mas- 
 ter of the sacrifices? for a deacon, a minister or priest of the 
 curia? for the grace of God, munificence of the Divine Will? for 
 absolution, manumission? You see how few of the innumerable 
 throng of like words I have mentioned. How will the candidate 
 for Ciceronianism act in such a case ? Will he keep silent or will 
 he change to words acceptable to Christians? 
 No.— What else? 
 
 • Bu. — Let us then imagine an example. This thought, Jesus 
 Christ, the Word, and Son of the Eternal Father, according to 
 the prophets came into the world and was made man; of his 
 oivn will he suffered death and redeemed his church; turned the 
 ■math of the offended father from us; reconciled us to Him so 
 
68 Ciceronianus 
 
 that, justified by the grace of faith and freed from tyranny, we 
 are brought into the church and, persevering in the communion 
 of the church, after this life we reach the kingdom of heaven, 
 a Ciceronian would express thus : The interpreter and son of most 
 excellent and mighty Jove, preserver and king, in accordance with 
 the response of the soothsayer, flew down from Olympus to earth 
 and, assuming the shape of man, sacrificed himself voluntarily to 
 the shades below for the safety of the Republic and thus freed 
 the state; he extinguished the lightning of most excellent and 
 mighty Jove which flashed about our heads, restored us to his 
 favor so that we, rendered innocent by the wealth of persuasion 
 and freed from the mastery of a deceiver, are admitted into the 
 state; and if we persevere in the fellowship of the Republic we 
 shall gain the highest happiness, zvhen the fates shall have called 
 us from this life, into the society of the Gods. 
 
 No. — You are surely jesting, Bulephorus. 
 
 B.U- — I call to witness our beloved Goddess iraOw^ that I am 
 treating a serious subject. Suppose occasion arises for a dis- 
 cussion of the most difficult questions in our dogmas, how much 
 of illumination will the discussion have if it proceed by the help 
 of such petty figures? What else but smoke shall I add to the 
 darkness of the subject matter? How often will the reader 
 come to a standstill at difficulties? But suppose up to this point 
 I ape Cicero, what will I do when the theme demands the testi- 
 mony of the divine scriptures? When something must be cited 
 from the teachings of the decalogue, shall I simply add "Read 
 the law?" When there shall be need to pronounce an ordinance 
 of the synod, shall I add, "Read the decree of the Senate?" 
 When something must be related from the prophets or apostles, 
 will it be enough to say, "Read the testimony?" These are 
 Cicero's regular phrases. And so I shall evade the subjects lest 
 I contaminate Ciceronian diction with words that are not 
 Ciceronian ? 
 
 No. — How now? Do you advise us to use the phrases of 
 Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus? 
 
 Bu. — If propriety is an essential, it is better in speaking of 
 sacred things than to copy Cicero. And yet there is a certain 
 happy mean between the Scotists and the extreme Ciceronians. 
 
 1 Persuasion. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 69 
 
 It does not necessarily follow that all Latin is bad which is not 
 found in Cicero : for, as it has been said often already, his works 
 are not all extant; he did not treat of all subjects of his own 
 time; nor did he know or discuss subjects peculiar to our time. 
 Finally, in propriety and elegance of language Marcus Varro 
 equals Cicero and Caius Caesar surpasses him, for Cicero was 
 not the author and parent of the Roman speech. He was a 
 very great orator and a pleader in civil cases of the first rank, 
 but in some other things he was of the second rank — an indif- 
 ferent poet, rather a poor translator from the Greek, of un- 
 certain promise in other fields. If I should have to speak of 
 matrimony, a state which is quite different from what it was 
 formerly and a subject upon which Cicero has left us nothing, 
 should I hesitate to choose thoughts and language from Aris- 
 totle, Xenophon, Plutarch, the Bible, TertuUian, St. Jerome or 
 St. Augustine for fear of seeming not much of a Ciceronian? 
 And if there is need of teaching on a rural theme, shall I have no 
 right to take what I please from Vergil, Cato, Varro, Columella ? 
 
 i If newly coined words are considered barbarisms, every 
 word was once a barbarism. How many new words will 
 
 ' you find in Cicero himself? Especially in those books in which 
 he treats of rhetoric and of philosophy? Who before Cicero 
 heard of beatitas or beatitudof What does finis bonorum mean 
 to the Latins, though in Cicero it signifies the highest good, or 
 
 I that in which one expresses the highest happiness? How does 
 
 Tvisum, and visio, species, praepositum, and rejectum sound to 
 us? How would occupatio, contentio, superlatio, complexio, 
 traductio, frequentatio, licentia, gradatio, status, and constitutio, 
 pidicatio, continens, firmamentum, demonstrativum genus, in- 
 
 iductio, propositum, aggressio, insinuatio, acclamatio sound to 
 Latin ears? Or innumerable other words, unheard of, before 
 by the Latins, which he either dared to coin or to use in such 
 a new sense that the Roman people did not recognize them? 
 He did not hesitate to do this, in spite of protestation, when 
 he translated the doctrines of Grecian philosophers; he also 
 naturalized in Latin several foreign words in order to explain 
 the content of the rules of the rhetoricians by specific words 
 formed for this special purpose; yet we think it a crime, if in 
 handling new themes we use a few new words? There is no 
 art to which we do not grant the right of using its own vocabu- 
 
70 Ciceronianus 
 
 lary: the grammarians may say, supine and gerund; the mathe- 
 maticians may say sesquialteral and superbipartient ; the farmers 
 and mechanics have vocabularies adapted to their arts. Shall 
 we then confound heaven and earth, if we explain the mysteries 
 of our religion in language peculiar to it? Since the Christian 
 religion first came to us from Palestine, Asia Minor, and Greece, 
 some Hebraic and many Greek words were carried in along 
 with these ideas themselves; for example, osanna, amen, ecclesia, 
 Apostolus, Episcopus, catholicus, orthodoxus, hereticus, schisma, 
 charisma, dogma, Chrisma, Chris tus, baptizo, Paracletus, Evange- 
 lium, evangelizare, Evangelista, proselitus, catechumenus, Exor- 
 cismus, Eucharistia, symbolum, anathema. The first priests of the 
 Christian religion in order to disseminate their sublime doctrine 
 used ojnowios which we translate consubstantialis and fides, 
 gratia, Mediator, and others which either were entirely new to 
 the Latins or used in a different sense. Then is being called Ci- 
 ceronian of so much consequence that we are absolutely silent 
 about things of which we above all others ought to speak ? Shall 
 we abstain from words of the Apostles and from those brought 
 into currency by our fathers which are even now in good repute 
 and contrive others in their place? No, indeed. The Greeks in- 
 troduced honey, pepper, mustard into their language, the Romans 
 did the same. Shall we shrink from those words which have 
 come to us along with that divine religion through Christ, the 
 apostles, and the Holy Fathers, and take refuge in Cicero, 
 intending thereafter to borrow words from him, ev rif ffxiKif /lupov* 
 as the Greeks say? If any one should dispute with 
 us seriously, he would very quickly say that the majesty 
 of the Christian religion is marred by the words, figures, 
 and rhythms of Cicero. But I do not agree, for elegance and 
 terseness of speech pleases me always. You may say that he 
 does not speak Ciceronian who, a Christian among Christians, 
 speaks on a Christian theme as Cicero, a heathen among heathens, 
 spoke on a heathen theme; but I say that if Cicero were alive 
 now and endowed with such genius as he was then, with such 
 skill of speaking, with such knowledge of our times as he had of 
 his own, if he were inflamed with such zeal toward the Christian 
 state as he showed for the Roman City and the majesty of the 
 Roman name, he would speak today as a Christian among Chris- 
 
 ^ Perfume on pulse. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 71 
 
 tians. He who can do this may step forth and we shall gladly 
 dub him a Ciceronian if he longs for the name. Cicero, if he 
 were alive today would not consider God the Father less elegant 
 than Jupiter Optimus Maximus, or Jesus Christ less pleasing to 
 the ear than Romulus or Scipio Africanus or Quintus Curtius or 
 Marcus Decius; nor less splendid would he think the name of the 
 Catholic Church than that of the Conscript Fathers, the Knights, 
 the Senate of the Roman people. He would say with us faith in 
 Christ, he would call those out of Christ iniidels, he would say 
 The Holy Comforter, The Holy Trinity. I offer proofs for my 
 statements. Did the desire of elegance hinder him from using 
 the set phrase rather than rhetorical Latin in the Philippics when 
 he was reciting the formula of the senate's decree ? Does he not 
 use in Topics legal terms very different from the language of 
 the rhetoricans? Would he have spurned words peculiar to our 
 religion ? 
 No. — ^Your proofs seem convincing. 
 
 I Bu. — Furthermore, does not the beauty of language in great 
 measure depend upon figures and allusions ? Where does Cicero 
 get these? Is it not from Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Ennius, 
 
 . Lucilius, Accius, Pecuvius, Naevius, from the philosophers and 
 the historians? 
 
 ' No. — I grant that without these ornaments, speech is mean 
 and common. With them it becomes admirable. 
 
 I Bu. — What if we should borrow as he did from Vergil, Horace, 
 Ovid, Seneca, Lucan, Martial, would we be unlike Cicero to that 
 extent? 
 
 No. — That is granted, perhaps reluctantly; for the antiquity 
 of those whose words he quotes has a sort of majesty in Cicero. 
 Bu. — How comes it then that we think the whole oration 
 defiled if from the most ancient prophets, from Moses, the 
 psalms, the Gospels and apostolic letters we seek the adornments 
 which Cicero sought as a heathen froni the heathens? Is it 
 admirable to borrow from Socrates, but blameworthy to borrow 
 from the proverbs of Solomon? Does Solomon compare un- 
 favorably with Socrates in our estimation? Will the oration be 
 made brilliant by a word from Pindar or Horace and defiled 
 by an appropriate one from the sacred psalms? Are weight and 
 dignity added to an oration by introducing a thought from 
 Plato and the charm destroyed by a thought of Christ from the 
 
72 Ciceronianus 
 
 Gospels? Whence these absurdities? Do we admire the wis- 
 dom of Plato more than the wisdom of Christ? Are the books 
 revealed by the Holy Spirit mean in comparison to the writings 
 of Homer, Euripides, or Ennius? But let us make no mention 
 of the Holy Spirit in this connection lest we seem sacrilegious. 
 Histor)-, if you take away fidelity deserves not the name of his- 
 tory. Compare, if you will, the story teller, Herodotus, with 
 Moses ; compare the story of the creation of the world beginning 
 from Egypt with the stories of Diodorus; compare the books 
 of Judges and Kings with Livy who often contradicts himself, 
 to say nothing of his untrustworthiness ; compare Plato with 
 Christ ; the cipoiveuxs* of Socrates with the divine oracles of Christ ; 
 the psalms so spiritual with the eulogies of Pindar; the songs 
 of Solomon with the ditties of Theocritus. Whether you look 
 at the authors or the subjects, there is no resemblance. Divine 
 wisdom has an eloquence of its own and no wonder if some- 
 what different from that of Demosthenes or Cicero; for one 
 dress becomes the wife of a king, another the mistress of a 
 braggart soldier. 
 
 I was going to ask, if any one should begin to compare words, 
 figures, rhythms : — Does Thessalian vale sound sweeter to us than 
 Mount Zionf Or has granted by the immortal Gods more of 
 majesty than granted by God the Father? Or is Socrates, son 
 of Sophroniscus, more pleasing to our ears than Lord Jesus, son 
 of God? Is Hannibal, the commander of the Carthaginians, a 
 sweeter sound then Paul, teacher of the Gentiles? If you com- 
 pare the characters; Hannibal strove for the destruction of the 
 Roman people while Paul introduced a religion of salvation. If 
 you compare the words, I ask what is the difference? 
 
 Hyp. — If we are willing to acknowledge the truth, there is no 
 difference, save that a deep-rooted fancy has taught us that the 
 words of the one are polished and splendid, of the other ugly 
 and crude. 
 
 Bu. — You have hit the nail on the head. But to what is this 
 fancy due? 
 
 Hyp. — I do not know. 
 
 Bu. — To the facts in the case? 
 
 Hyp. — I think not. 
 
 Bu. — Do you wish me to speak what is truer than truth? 
 
 Urony. 
 
// Dialogut on tht Best Style of Speaking 73 
 
 ]Iyp. — You have my peniiisHioii. 
 
 Bu. — 1 am waiting for our friend's permission here. 
 
 No.—lCiijoy llie rJKWit of om- bargain. 
 
 I3u, — lUil 1 fear wliat 1 am about to aay will nol seem .very 
 Ciceronian. 
 
 No.— -That does not matter at all, 
 
 liu.— It is due to paganism, NoHOpoiuis. It is paganism 
 which iiillucnces our cars and minds. We are Cliristiuiis only 
 in name, 'Hie body is btiplized in sacred water Init (he mind 
 li unwashed; the forehead is signed witii the cross, the mind 
 curies the cross; we profes.s Jesus with our mouths, we wear 
 Jupiter Optimus Maximus and liomulus in our hearts. Otlior- 
 wlie, it we were truly what we are called, what name pray under 
 the sun ought to be more pleasing to our thoughts or our cars 
 than the name of Jesus, through whom we are rescued from so 
 great evil; by whose gracious kindness we are called to such 
 dignity and invited to eternal happiness; at the mention of whose 
 name evil spirits — more than deadly enemies of the human race 
 — tremble and angels bow their heads and knees; whose name 
 is so efficacious that demons flee at the invocation of him, in- 
 r curable diseases yield and the dead come to life; so kind and 
 j friendly tluit the bitterest calamities arc solaced if you sincerely 
 ipeak the name of Jeaus? Are we then persuaded that by this 
 name the luster of oratory is dulled, while Hannibal and Camil- 
 lus are its true liglits? Let us absolutely uproot and cast forth 
 from the mind this paganism. A truly Christian heart let us 
 bring to tlie reading and we shall see a brilliant star added to 
 our style whenever the name of Jesus C"!hri8t is spoken and an 
 exi|idsite Rem when the name of the VirRin Motiiev, of Peter, or 
 of Paul is used. Added beauty too, we shall see when from 
 the inner .sanctuary of the divine writings, from the cruses and 
 ointment l)oxes of the Holy Ghost, a thought is thrown in 
 llpproi)riately and ,sinoerely; ond thus ivinch more dif^nity will 
 be found in the diction than if there had been added ten tliou- 
 l&nd phrases from tlie writings of Ennius and Accius. 
 
 lly|),- - t'ertaiuly theologians are kept in this way from briuj^-i 
 Ing the charge of heresy. 
 
 Bu. — Grunted that Cicero's longuage is full of figures, ours 
 is OS full; while in majesty of themes and in trustworthiness we 
 are far superior to him. Only about words dcx-s our pa.n'an 
 
74 Ciceronianus 
 
 fancy trick us, does the lukewarm Christian feeling deceive;' 
 because those things which are most beautiful by their own 
 nature are distasteful to us; because we do not love — ^would 
 that we did not hate. For, according to Theocritis, to Love 
 beautiful are even those things which are not beautiful, just as 
 to Hate there is nothing that is not deformed. I come to allu- 
 sions which if you destroy, you know yourself how you destroy 
 the beauty of speech. Why does one please us very much more, 
 if when pointing out some person in very unsuitable surround- 
 ings, he should say "Wild pulse among kitchen vegetables" than 
 if he should say "Saul among the soothsayers' or if, pointing 
 out something said or done at the wrong time, he should say 
 "Perfume on lentils ' rather than "A gold ring in a hog's nose," 
 or if. pointing out that not fortune but good conscience is to 
 be trusted, he should say "Hope must be placed in the pro- 
 tection of the sacred anchor" rather than ■■\\'e must lean upon 
 the solid rock," or if, wishing to act the part of a good man on 
 the stage and to devote himself to, the comforts of others rather 
 than to self-aggrandizement, one should say "Nothing is less 
 becoming to a Christian than to play the role of an Aspendian 
 harper" rather than alluding to the word of Paul, "We must 
 look rather to what is lawful than to what is convenient?" If 
 I should try to exhaust such illustrations, it would take a whole 
 volume. I am content to have given a few. How we gape, 
 how we stand stupified if we find an image or even the frag- 
 ment of an image of the ancient divinities, while we look askance 
 at the images of Christ and the saints! How we man'el at an 
 epigram or epitaph found in some decaying rock or other: — 
 "To the departed spirit of my most beloved wife, Lucia, 
 deprived of life before her time, Marcellus has set up this stone. 
 O unfortunate me! ^^^ly do I live!" Notwithstanding we find 
 very often in passages of this kind, not only fooUsh and pagan 
 sentiments, but also extraordinary solecisms; yet we cherish 
 them, venerating and almost adoring antiquity, while we deride 
 the relics of the apostles. If any one should quote from the 
 Twelve Tables, who would not consider him worthy of the most 
 sacred place? And yet do any of us venerate and cherish the 
 laws inscribed by the finger of God? How we treasure the 
 image of Hercules or Mercury or Fortune or Mctory or Alexan- 
 der the Great or any of the Caesars stamped upon a coin; but 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 75 
 
 smile at them as superstitious who have among their cherished 
 possessions wood of the cross, images of the Trinity and of the 
 Saints! 
 
 If ever you have visited the libraries of the Ciceronians at 
 Rome, recall, I pray, whether you saw an image of the crucifix 
 or of the sacred Trinity or of the apostles. You will find them 
 all full of monuments of heathenism. Among the pictures, 
 "Jupiter Slipping into the Lap of Danae through the Implu- 
 vium" attracts our attention rather than "Gabriel Announcing 
 the Immaculate Conception to the Holy Virgin;" "Ganymede 
 Stolen by the Eagle" delights us rather than "Christ Ascend- 
 ing into Heaven." Our eyes linger on the portrayal of bac- 
 chanalian feasts and festivals of Terminus full of disgrace and 
 obscenity rather than on "The Raising of Lazarus" or "The 
 Baptism of Christ by John." These are mysteries hidden under 
 the veil of the Ciceronian name. Under the show of a beauti- 
 ful name, I assure you, snares are held out to simple minded 
 and credulous youths. We do not dare to profess paganism. 
 We plead as an excuse Ciceronianism. But how much better 
 it would be to be silent! 
 
 No. — I was waiting to see how you would advance our cause. 
 But by slipping away into some other channel you have weak- 
 ened my purpose and frustrated my plans. 
 
 Bu. — I said before and I repeat, I am not drawing your mind 
 away from your noble ambitions but I am lifting it to the best. 
 Nor have I mentioned these things because I think that .you 
 share my feelings about them, but because I am striving with 
 all my might that we may attain true Ciceronian eloquence; 
 that we may not aim at it diligently with absolutely incorrect ideas 
 and achieve nothing else than that while we desire very much 
 to be considered Ciceronians we become anything but Cicer- 
 onians tested by your own premises; viz, that it is a character- 
 istic of Cicero to speak with absolute perfection, that he does 
 not speak even well who speaks inappropriately, and that any 
 diction is cold and dead which does not come from the heart. 
 
 No. — How then shall we ever become true Ciceronians? For 
 I shall not be loth to follow your plan if it is better than mine. 
 
 Bu. — There is not much else that I could wish for myself or 
 that I could teach you. I can wish for talent and natural 
 ability, I cannot furnish it. Minds of men have individual bent, 
 
76 Ciceronianus 
 
 and this has such power that if they are adapted to one style of 
 speaking by nature they may strive in vain for another. Ocoiui-yla} 
 yields victory to none as the Greeks say. 
 
 No. — I know that ^Quintilian insistentl}- urges the same thing. 
 
 Bu. — This then is my first advice, that no one devote himself 
 to copying Cicero whose bent of mind is very unlike Cicero's; 
 for if he does he will come out a monstrosity who has lost his 
 own native beauty and has not gained another's. Therefore 
 especial care must be taken to find out the field you are fitted 
 for by nature; and this is desirable also because if there is any 
 faith to be put in Astrology no one can be successful in that 
 with which his horoscope is at variance. One who is destined 
 for letters will never be fortunate in war, and he who is born 
 for war will never succeed in letters. He who is bom for 
 wedlock will never be a good monk. He who is naturally a 
 farmer will never have success at court and vice versa. 
 
 No. — But there is nothing which persistent labor cannot over- 
 come. By human skill we see stone turned into water, lead 
 into silver, brass into gold; through cultivation plants lay aside 
 their wild character. What Jiinders the genius of man also from 
 being transformed by training and practice? 
 
 Bu. — Training improves the pliable nature, wins over the 
 slightly rebellious, and corrects the perverted one; but you will 
 trouble yourself to no purpose, Nosoponus, about a nature an- 
 tagonistic and set for a different course. A horse learns to be 
 driven around the race course, he learns a pacing gate; but it 
 would be of no use to lead the oxen to the ring, to call the 
 dog to the plough, or the gazelle to the race-course. Water is 
 perhaps turned into air, air into fire — ^if fire is ever an elementary 
 substance ; but earth is never turned into fire, nor fire into water. 
 
 No. — But what hinders us from adapting the language of 
 Cicero to every subject? 
 
 Bu. — I acknowledge that there are certain general principles 
 that can be applied to any theme, such as purity, clearness, 
 elegance of expression, order, and such things, but this does 
 not satisfy those apes of Cicero. They demand the absolute 
 reproduction of words — the very thing, which, granting that it 
 could be done somehow or other, in certain allied subjects, 
 
 1 A battle with the Gods. 
 >Inst. Orat. X, c. J. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 77 
 
 would be impossible in wholly different subjects. You will 
 acknowledge, I think, that Vergil holds first place among Latin 
 poets just as Cicero among Latin orators. 
 
 No. — Yes. 
 
 Bu. — Well, if you are preparing to write lyric verse, will you 
 place before you Horace or Vergil? 
 
 No. — Horace is the greatest in his class. 
 
 Bu.— What if satire? 
 
 No. — Horace, with much more reason. 
 
 Bu. — What if you are contemplating comedy. 
 
 No. — I will go to Terence for a model. 
 
 Bu. — ^To be sure, on account of the great difference of theme. 
 
 No. — But the language of Cicero has some peculiar, inde- 
 finable adaptability. 
 
 Bu. — Exactly the same I could say, "indefinable." Im- 
 moderate love for Cicero deceives many, because to adapt the 
 .language of Cicero to an entirely different theme is to come 
 out unUke him. But here let me say, it is not necessary to aim 
 at likeness if one may be equal or at least approximate though 
 unlike. What more unlike than the emerald and the gold- 
 bronze! And yet they are equally precious and pleasing. The 
 rose is different from the lily, of different odor; and yet the one 
 equals the other. Have you not often seen two girls of different 
 feature, but both of such beauty that their excellence would 
 make it hard to choose between them? That is not necessarily 
 .best which is most like Cicero: for, as I was going to say, no 
 animal in all its members approaches nearer to the figure of 
 man than the ape, and so like is it that if nature had added a 
 voice it could seem a man; again nothing is more unlike man 
 than a peacock or a swan — and yet, I think, you would prefer 
 to be a swan or a peacock rather than an ape. 
 
 Hyp. — I should prefer to be a camel or gazelle to being the 
 most beautiful of apes. 
 
 Bu. — Tell me, Nosoponus, would you prefer the voice of a 
 nightingale or a cuckoo? 
 
 No. — Of a nightingale. 
 
 Bu. — And yet the cuckoo approaches nearer to the voice of 
 man. Would you prefer to sing with the larks or to croak 
 with the crows? 
 
 No. — To sing with the larks. 
 
73 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bo. — Aad yet the voice of the crow is more like that of man. 
 Would you prefer to bray \»-ith the asses or to whinny with the 
 horses? 
 
 Xo. — ^To whinny with the horses, if the fates drove to either. 
 
 Bu. — And yet the ass tries, as it were, to speak in human 
 ^hion. 
 
 Xo. — But I think that my ability does not differ so much as 
 that from Cicero's. And what is lacking by nattire, practice 
 will perfect But finish your advice to me. 
 
 Bu. — You do well to call me back to the path, for my talk 
 was about to slip away in another direction. It is of the greatest 
 importance that we really accomplish our desire of e:^ressing 
 Cicero completd}-, though he is complete neither in words nor 
 in phrases nor in rhythms; nor indeed are hardly haU his wmks 
 extant as has been explained sufficiently before. 
 
 Xo. — ^Where then is he complete: 
 
 Bu. — ^Xowhere exc^t in himsdt But if you wish to express 
 Cicero exactly, you cannot express yovirselL If you do not 
 express yourself, your qieech wiB be a ^Ise mirror and will 
 be as absurd as ii, by imparitig your face with colors, you 
 pretend to be Petronius instead of Xosoponus. 
 
 Xo. — You speak in riddles. 
 
 Bu. — ^I will use more hcwnely phrase. They play the fool who 
 distort themselves to copy Cicero exactly: for it would not be 
 possible, if it were desirable; and it would not be desirable, if 
 it were possible. But he can be expressed exactly in this way: 
 if we strive in our imitation to express not his exact virtues, 
 but as great ones, or it may be greater. Thus it can happen 
 that he is most a Ciceronian who is most unlike Gcero, that is. 
 who speaks best and most pointedly, though in a different way: 
 and this :s not surprising for the environment is now entirdf 
 different To illustrate — if cme should wish to paint an old man 
 whom Apelles had painted in youth he would be diserait ircm 
 .\pelles in this very thing, if he should paint him in the same 
 way. though the model were now quite changed. 
 
 Hj-p. — A riddle worthy of the Sphinx, that somecme is unlike 
 in that very thing in which he is like. 
 
 Bu. — Would not this happen if any one should sing at a 
 funeral as Hermogenes sang at a marriage, or should plead a 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 79 
 
 case before the Areopagites with such gestures as Roscius made 
 while dancing in the theatre? But we may be lilce Cicero. 
 
 No. — How? 
 
 Bu. — Did he devote himself to the imitation of one person? 
 No, he strove to copy what was especially appropriate in every 
 one. Demosthenes was his first but not his only model; nor 
 did he take him as model in order to copy him exactly, but to 
 cull the suitable; not to be content to follow, but to choose 
 and wisely shun some traits and improve upon others and to 
 imitate those which he approved of in such a way as to surpass 
 if possible. Besides, the sanctuary of his heart he filled to over- 
 flowing with the authors of all the branches of knowledge old 
 and new. He learned by heart the families of the state, the 
 rites, customs, laws, edicts, plebiscites. Not only he busied him- 
 self industriously at the shrines of the philosophers, but also 
 betook himself frequently into the retreats of the Muses, learn- 
 ing pronunciation from one, gesture from another. He who 
 does exactly these things will come out very different from 
 Cicero; he who does like or equal things will earn the name, 
 Ciceronian. 
 
 No. — Speak somewhat more clearly. 
 
 Bu. — He who busies himself with the same zeal in the field 
 of the Christian religion as Cicero did in that of secular things; 
 who drinks in the psalms and prophets with that feeling which 
 Cicero drank in the books of the poets; who desires to find out 
 the decrees of the apostles, the rites of the church, the rise, 
 progress, and decline of the Christian Republic with such vigi- 
 lance as Cicero labored to learn thoroughly the rights and laws 
 of the provinces, towns, and allies of the Roman City; and who 
 adapts what has been compiled from all these studies to present 
 themes, — that one can claim with some right the name, Cicer- 
 onian. 
 
 No. — I do not see the point of all your talk unless it is that 
 we speak in Christian style, not Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — What! He is not a Ciceronian to you who speaks 
 inaptly and is ignorant of the subject about which he is talking! 
 
 No. — By no means. 
 
 Bti. — But this is the tendency of those who now desire to be 
 called Ciceronians. We are inquiring into this so that we may 
 
8o Ciceronianus 
 
 not rail into the same error. There is no reason why one shoald 
 not speak in a style at once Christran and Gceronian, provided 
 you acknowledge him a Ocerooian who speaks deariy, dxiss^, 
 iordbly. and apprc^Hriately, in harmony with the nature of the 
 theme, the ccmdition of the times, and the characters. Nov 
 some have thodght the faculty of speaking well was not dne to 
 trainii^ bat to jt^gment, and Cicero himsdf in his Partitumes 
 nicely defines eloquence as "wisdom speaking fluently." There 
 ran be no doubt that he sought this kind of doquence. Ye 
 Gods! how far away from this ideal are those who wish to 
 speak, in Qceronian style, on widely varying themes which they 
 neitho- know nor care for. That erenrthing which is not in 
 harmony with Gcero seems sordid and faulty is a dangeroas 
 and deceitful dream of our minds, to be relegated far from us, 
 ii we wish to enjoy that distinction amoi^ Christians which 
 Cicero enjoyed anKmg Ms contemporaries. ^Scribendi rede 
 safere est et primcipiuiH et fons^ says that most derer o£ critics. 
 What pray is Ae fount then of Ciceronian ekxjnence? — A rmoA 
 richly inscmcted in general knowledge with especial care oo those 
 subjects about which ycu hare d^ermined to write, a nricd pne- 
 paxec by the rules of rhetoric, by much practice in speaking and 
 writing and by daily meditation, and what is the essential porot 
 of the whole matter, a heart loring those things for wUcb it 
 pleads, batii^ those things wfaidi it ctxidenKis. JcmeA to all iMs 
 mtist be a natural insgfat. discrimination, and wisdcnn whidi 
 cannot be embodied in precq>ts. How, pray tdl me, do these 
 thiags come to those who read notfaiisg by day ch" n^^fat hit. 
 Cicero? 
 
 Xo. — But it has been said, and not without shrewdness, that 
 they who work long in the sun take cotor, and those who sit 
 long in a perfumed dweffii^ carry the odtM* of tlK place with 
 them when they leave. 
 
 Bu. — This compariscm pleases me rery much indeed. They 
 take with them cmly tlK coloring of the skin and a whiff qnidly 
 vanishing. Those who are content widi such gkwy may 9t as 
 much as they please amid the ointment boxes and the rose 
 gardens of Gcero, may bask in his sunshine. I should pceier, 
 to put the good spices into my stomach, to inject them into my 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 8i 
 
 veins so that not only I might sprinkle my neighbors with the 
 delicate perfume, but that I myself might feel the glow and 
 might become so animated that upon occasion a word might 
 come forth which would seem the issue of a sane and well-fed 
 mind. For out of the inmost veins, not out of the skin, is born 
 the style which holds the listener, moves him, and carries him 
 where you will. I do not say these things because I think that 
 out of the books of Cicero is gathered a common and pitiable 
 store, but because Cicero alone is not enough to furnish richness 
 of speech on every theme. 
 
 What conclusion then, except that we may learn from Cicero 
 himself how to imitate Cicero ? Let us imitate him as he imitated 
 others. If he settled down to the reading of one author, if he 
 
 • devoted himself to the copying of one, if he cared more for 
 
 , words than for ideas, if he did not write except in bed at night, 
 if he worried himself a whole month over one letter, if he thought 
 something eloquent which was irrelevant, let us do the same 
 thing that we may be Ciceronians. But if Cicero did not do 
 these things, which we must grant, let us, after his example, fill 
 our hearts with a store of general knowledge; let us care first 
 for thoughts, then for words ; let us adapt the words to the sub- 
 
 4 jects, not subjects to words; and while speaking let us never 
 move our eyes from that which is seemly. Thus, in short, will 
 the oration be alive only when it is born in the heart and does 
 not float on the lips. The precepts of art let us not ignore, for 
 they contribute most to the invention, disposition, and handling 
 of arguments; and let us avoid those things which either are 
 superfluous or hinder the case; but, when a serious case is to be 
 handled let wisdom hold first place. And in fictitious cases 
 which are handled for the sake of practice, it is best for the 
 arguments to seem as true as possible. Cicero has written that 
 the soul of Laelius breathed forth in his writings ; but it is stupid 
 for you to try to write with the taste of another and to take 
 pains that the soul of Cicero may breathe forth from your writ- 
 
 \ ings. That must be digested which you devour in your varied 
 daily reading, must be made your own by meditation rather than 
 memorized or put into a book, so that your mind crammed with 
 every kind of food may give birth to a style which smells not of 
 any flower, shrub, or grass but of your own native talent and 
 feeling ; so that he who reads may not recognize fragments culled 
 6 
 
82 Ciceronianus 
 
 from Cicero but the reflection of a well-stored mind. Cicero 
 had read all his predecessors and weighed carefully what was 
 worthy of sanction or censure in each; yet you would not 
 recognize any one of them in particular in Cicero but the force 
 . of a mind animated by the thoughts of them all. 
 
 If Cicero's method is not convincing, let us consider an 
 example from nature. Do bees gather the material for their 
 honeycomb from one shrub? Do they not rather fly about 
 all kinds of flowers, shrubs, bushes, with wonderful zeal, fre- 
 quently seeking from afar what they may store in their hive? 
 Nor is what they bring straightway honey. They fashion a 
 liquid with their organs, and after it is made their own, they 
 give that forth in which you do not recognize the taste or the 
 odor of flower or shrub but a product mingled in due propor- 
 tion from them all. Nor do the she-goats feed upon one kind 
 of foUage that they may give milk like only to these; but they 
 feed on every kind of leaf and give forth not the juice of herbs 
 but milk transformed from them. 
 
 No. — Yet it makes a difference where the bee gathers the 
 liquid, or upon what leaf the she-goat feeds. If, indeed, yew- 
 tree honey is made from the yew-tree, will not likewise the taste 
 of the milk from the she-goat savor of oak leaves and willows? 
 
 Bu. — Well, take artists. Do those who seek fame in plastic 
 or graphic art devote themselves to the imitation of only one 
 master or do they take what they please from each for the per- 
 fection of art, so imitating that they may possibly surpass? 
 What about the architect? Does he, when preparing to build 
 some great house, take all the details from a single building? 
 Not at all, he selects from many what he finds to his taste, else 
 no great praise would he gain when the spectator recognizes 
 this or that building reproduced. And yet to be a slave to the 
 copy in art is more tolerable than in oratory. What is the 
 reason then that we have devoted ourselves so religiously to 
 Cicero alone? They sin twice who not only set themselves to 
 just one copy but also, being ignorant of rhetorical rules, read 
 no one except Cicero and nothing outside to teach them how 
 to appreciate him. For what profits it to have your eyes fixed 
 on Cicero if you have not skillful eyes? What would it profit 
 me who am ignorant of the art of drawing, if I should look 
 whole days at the pictures of Apelles and Zeuxis? But when 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 83 
 
 you have learned the rules of rhetoric and when some skilled 
 artist has pointed out to you in several of those orations in 
 which Cicero has reached the height of his art the essential 
 elements of his style: — ^propositions happily devised — their 
 order, division, treatment, enrichment, perfecting seeds of the 
 entire oration in the introduction; the conjunction of the in- 
 dividual parts; his wisdom and judgment which can be ap- 
 preciated but not learned by rule; when likewise you have seen 
 clearly the discrimination of the orator — what he has included 
 and where, what he has omitted and why, what he has deferred 
 and to what point of the speech; furthermore, in what way he 
 handles the emotions; and lastly, the splendor, range, and orna- 
 mentation of his discourse, — then at length you will see wonder- 
 ful things in Cicero which your busy imitator never sees. For 
 he does not imitate art who does not understand it and no one 
 understands save the artist. A skillfully wrought piece of work 
 fills with some satisfaction even those who are ignorant of art 
 but how little there is which your imitator sees! 
 
 No. — From whom do you seek art more properly than from 
 Cicero? 
 
 " Bu. — I acknowledge it. No one has bequeathed it to us more 
 happily, no one had practiced it more perfectly; and yet Quin- 
 tilian has taught it with greater care and also in greater detail, 
 because he not only gives rules but also illustrates first prin- 
 ciples, development, method, execution, preparation, adding 
 many things which Cicero either has omitted or has but inci- 
 dentally touched, such as, the way of exciting the feehngs, the 
 kinds and use of aphorisms, the methods of amplifying, the 
 formulation of propositions, their division and arrangement, the 
 transposition and uniting of the essential points, the proper way 
 of reading, imitating, writing. But while we ought not to be 
 ignorant of rules, yet we ought not to be pedantic about them, 
 or to be slaves to them, for the anxious observation of rules 
 causes us to speak worse, whereas the business of art is to make 
 us speak better. That skilled teacher has contributed much 
 more than rules. Not only some of the Greeks, but also some of 
 the Romans have tried the same but have not succeeded so well. 
 We must be careful then, Nosoponus, not to think, as some of 
 your friends do, that we may become Ciceronians with no knowl- 
 edge of rhetoric, simply by constantly reading Cicero. For if 
 
84 Ciceronianus 
 
 they get anything of Cicero, they get only a kind of outer skin, 
 shadow, and breath. 
 
 No. — I do not deny, Bulephorus, that there are many such, 
 and their method has never pleased me. 
 
 Bu. — There is no personal reference to you. It applies to 
 Hypologus and myself. With this understanding, let us con- 
 sider, my dear friend, whether, in the first place, it would be 
 proper for us; in the second, whether it would be worth the 
 while to buy with such vigils the honor of the name, Ciceronian? 
 
 No. — There is nothing more honorable; and what is honor- 
 able cannot be improper. 
 
 Bu. — To discuss the propriety: You will acknowledge I 
 think, that Cicero's language would not have pleased the age of 
 Cato, the Censor; certainly it was more ornate and more luxur- 
 iant than was agreeable to that age, frugal in life and in speech. 
 Aye, even when Cicero lived, there were men who breathed forth 
 that early severity — Cato of Utica, for example, and Brutus, 
 and Asinius Pollio — who vainly sought m Cicero's eloquence 
 something more severe, less theatrical, more masculine, in spite 
 of the fact that at that time eloquence flourished so mightily in 
 the popular assembly, in the senate, in the courts, that the judges 
 both expected and demanded an ornate and attractive style from 
 the lawyers. If Cicero's style was lacking in manly vigor, do 
 you think it appropriate for Christians, whose every plan looks 
 rather to living virtuously than to speaking ornately and 
 elegantly, from whose lives all paint and theatrical efifects ought 
 to be far removed? 
 
 But suppose that it is appropriate, what reward for all your 
 toil? The aim of all this work is to persuade. But how much 
 more powerful in persuasion was Phocion than Demosthenes, 
 Aristides than Themistocles, how much more effective Cato than 
 Cicero, who sometimes injured the prisoner by his defence, or 
 aided him by his accusation? I will not linger here over those 
 very magnificently delivered speeches. It is more beautiful to 
 be a Phidias than a keeper of the chest or a cook, though their 
 work is more useful to the Republic than the statues of Phidias. 
 The skill of painters and sculptors is found in delighting the 
 eye; when this is fulfilled their task is done. Eloquence which 
 does nothing but delight is not really eloquence, for it was in- 
 tended to gain a different end; and if it does not succeed, it ill 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 85 
 
 becomes a good man. Even granting that the eloquence of 
 Cicero was useful once, what is its use today? In the courts, 
 you say? There the case is presented in legal provisions and 
 formulas by attorneys and lawyers who are anything but Cicer- 
 onians before judges in whose eyes Cicero would be a bar- 
 barian. Nor is there much more use for him in councils 
 where individual men state their views to a small group in French 
 or German. And business of especial importance is done today 
 in a secret committee composed of scarcely three men and these 
 almost illiterate whom the rest may consult. Furthermore, even 
 if today the cases were tried in Latin, who would endure such 
 a peroration as Cicero made in the cases against Verres, Cata- 
 line, Clodius, and the testimony of Vatinius? What senate so 
 amply supplied with time and patience that it would abide the 
 orations he delivered against Antony, though in these the elo- 
 quence is that of an older man, is less redundant and less 
 :; boastful ? 
 
 ; Therefore for what useful end, pray, are we securing this 
 I laboriously won eloquence of Cicero? For popular assemblies? 
 : The common people do not understand the language of Cicero ; 
 and in popular assembly no state business is transacted. In 
 |,church councils certainly this style of oratory does not belong 
 at all. What use then is it, unless perchance in embassies, which 
 at Rome especially are carried on in Latin by force of tradition 
 ^rather than from choice and for the sake of display rather than 
 utility; for in them practically no serious business is transacted, 
 all speech being spent in words of praise of him to whom you 
 are sent, in testimony of the goodwill of him by whom you are 
 ;sent, and in set common-places. In a word, all this is of such 
 a nature that you have accomplished a great thing if you have 
 avoided the appearance of adulation, even though perhaps you 
 have been really guilty. The response is customarily rather 
 dull, distressingly prolix, embarrassing to him who is praised 
 'Immoderately, mortifying to the speaker and also risky, for he 
 sweats while reciting what he has learned, is perplexed and some- 
 times does not know how to proceed either because of forgetful- 
 ness or confusion. What admiration, moreover, could such 
 speeches elicit, when they have been learned from some rhetori- 
 cian so that no reputation comes to our orator except the cour- 
 age of recitation? Thus at Rome nothing is done except the 
 
86 Ciccronianus 
 
 exchange of courteous greetings. The serious business is trans- 
 acted privately by letter and by conferences at which French is 
 spoken. Then what theater of action will our Ciceronian seek? 
 He will write Ciceronian epistles? To whom? To the learned; 
 but they are very few and care nothing about the language's 
 being Ciceronian provided it is sane, prudent, elegant, and 
 learned. To whom then? To the four ^Italians who recently 
 have begun to boast themselves Ciceronians, though, as it has 
 been shown, there is nothing more unlike Cicero than they, who 
 have scarcely the faintest trace of him. 
 
 Perhaps nothing ought to be despised, however trivial, if it 
 comes without effort, if it hinders not greater and more impor- 
 tant things. But ask yourself whether this reputation ought to 
 be bought at the expense of sleep, of great toil, perhaps of 
 health itself, in order to be taken into the list of Ciceronians 
 by four silly Italian youths. 
 
 No. — You do not approve of the study of eloquence then? 
 
 Bu. — Cicero does not require eloquence from a philosopher. 
 Do you think any one among the heathen philosophers weightier 
 than any Christian? 
 
 Hyp. — No, indeed. All the philosophy of the Greeks com- 
 pared to the philosophy of Christ is a dream and bauble. 
 
 Bu. — Then how brazen are we to exact of a Christian Cicer- 
 onian eloquence, which is both inimitable and even in a Pagan's 
 i opinion ill becoming a serious man? And it does not follow 
 that a style is bad because it differs from Cicero's. Nor can it 
 be too oft repeated that fitness is absolutely essential to good 
 style. Add to this that any armor which is only for show and 
 not at band when the occasion demands is useless. Business 
 sometimes urges us to write twenty letters in one day. What 
 will my Ciceronian do in such a case? And again how few 
 there are now who care for Ciceronian style? What about the 
 fact too that Cicero has many styles? He has one when, in 
 relaxed and quiet conversation, he teaches philosophy; another 
 in the pleading of cases; another in letters where the language 
 is not studied but even almost careless, — very appropriate for a 
 letter which follows the turn of familiar conversation. Would 
 it not be absurd for one to write a letter on a matter of business 
 as carefully as Cicero wrote the oration Pro Milone? And shall 
 
 'Aonio Palerio, Jacob Sadolet, Peter Bembo, etc. 
 
J 
 
 A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 87 
 
 we put a month's work on a brief note about matters of little 
 importance? Not even Cicero would have bought that eloquence 
 which he displays in court if it had cost him as many vigils as 
 a letter costs us ; though in his day the exercise of eloquence in 
 the Republic was great, its study both in private and official 
 life flourishing, and that facility was far more easily gained. 
 Rightly was the man ridiculed who tormented himself for days 
 and still was not able to compose the exordium of his oration 
 because he was striving to speak better than he could. There 
 is in Cicero a certain happy, natural ease, and a native clearness. 
 If nature has denied us this, why do we vainly torture ourselves? 
 Why do others, madder far than we, torment themselves in these 
 times, when all the conditions are changed and when there is 
 hardly any practice of Ciceronian speech, with this one desire 
 of being Ciceronians and nothing but Ciceronians? 
 
 No. — Your rhetoric is beautiful, but I cannot rid myself of 
 this longing, it has taken such hold of me. 
 
 Bu. — From a moderate desire of imitation I do not call you, 
 but imitate only his best ; emulate rather than follow ; desire more 
 truly to rival than to be exactly alike ; work along the line of your 
 natural ability; do not endeavor to make your speech harmonize 
 so with Cicero's that it dqes not fit your subject. Above all, 
 show no anxiety; for anxiety is always unfortunate and never 
 anywhere more than in speaking. Finally, do not take the 
 matter so seriously that, if you do not succeed, you will count 
 life bitter and not worth living, although you know that many 
 thousands of learned men without this title have attained great 
 reputations in life, and immortality after death. 
 
 No. — That is indeed the way I feel now. 
 
 Bu. — I too felt that way once but I have recovered from the 
 disease. 
 
 No. — How pray? 
 
 Bu. — I called a doctor. 
 
 No. — Whom, pra;y? 
 
 Bu. — An eloquent, an efficacious one. 
 
 No. — Whom, I say? 
 
 Bu. — In comparison to whom Aesculapius and Hippocrates 
 are as nothing. 
 
 No. — You are playing with me. 
 
88 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — Than whom no one is more ready, more friendly, more 
 faithful; than whom no one cures more perfectly; he heals one 
 all over. 
 
 Xo. — If you will not give his name, at least give his remedy. 
 
 Bu. — Both his name and his remedy you shall know o Aoyos 
 Tu Xoyo/ has cured me. 
 
 H>-p. — You speak most truly. </tx5« voa-avtrrp "kaiv laTpos Xoyos' 
 
 Bu. — So I have recovered from that disease, Xosoponus. And 
 now, if you wish to take my character for a time, I will play the 
 physician. 
 
 No. — I'll play the part. 
 
 Bu. — \\'hen the paroxysm of the disease was upon me, the 
 doctor spoke to me just as I am now speaking to you. "A 
 false shame," he said, "is overwhelming you" because you can- 
 not endure a taunt common to so many thousands of men. 
 
 Xo. — What taunt? 
 
 Bu. — Because you are denied the title of Ciceronian. 
 
 X'o. — This hurts me, I acknowledge. 
 
 Bu. — But answer me in the name of the Pluses, what Cicer- 
 onians can you mention to me, save only Cicero himself? Let 
 us begin with the ancients. In the ver\- long list of orators 
 which Cicero has compiled in the Brutus there are scarcely two 
 whom he deems worthy of the title of orator at all, to say nothing 
 of being Ciceronians. Caius Caesar cannot be called a Cicer- 
 onian, in the first place because he was contemporary, and in 
 the second place because he aimed at a very different style of 
 oratory, content to speak gracefully and in his own distinctive 
 way. How little there is of Cicero in this! For it is not so 
 commendable for an orator to speak elegant Latin, as it is dis- 
 graceful for him to be ignorant of elegant Latin. Then too, 
 Caesar's works are not extant except some letters and the Com- 
 mentaries about the authorship of which there is much dispute 
 among scholars. There is certainly no oration extant, while in 
 this Cicero especially excelled. I may say the same of ^Marcus 
 Caelius, Plancus, and Decius Brutus, whose letters we have in 
 abundance, thanks to the zeal of Tiro. I may say the same also 
 of Cneius Pompeius, L. Cornelius Balbus, Lentulus, Cassius, . 
 Dolabella. Trebonius, PubUus Vatinius, Servius Sulpicius, Aulus 
 
 ^Reason -with reason. 
 
 ^Reason is the physician of a diseased mind. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 89 
 
 Caecina, Bithynius, Marcus Brutus, Asinius PoUio, Caius Caesar, 
 and others, fewer of whose letters we have but who were con- 
 temporaries of Cicero, so that it is not more fitting for Marcus 
 CaeHus to be called a Ciceronian than for Cicero to be called 
 a Caelian. Nor is there any resemblance to Cicero's letters ex- 
 cept the clear and natural elegance of the Roman language. 
 You object on the ground that in his letters you have not that 
 complete Cicero whom you set before yourself as model! At 
 this point I would say something of Crispus Sallust, a contem- 
 porary of Cicero, but very unlike him in style. 
 
 No. — Do not mention those rough, uncombed ancients in 
 whose time eloquence as well as manners had not yet become 
 polished, nor the contemporaries of Cicero, but those who lived 
 after him. 
 
 Bu. — Well, does Seneca seem to you a Ciceronian? 
 * No. — By no means, particularly in prose. And the Tragoediae, 
 which are esteemed by scholars, could hardly have been written 
 by Seneca. 
 
 Bu. — Valerius Maximus? 
 
 No. — He is as much like Cicero as a mule is like a man. So 
 
 ; difSferent indeed is he that you would scarcely believe he was 
 
 an Italian or that he lived in that age which he describes. So 
 
 I diflferent is his whole style that you might say he was an African. 
 
 Never was poetry more labored. 
 
 Bu. — What about Seutonius? 
 
 No. — Just as dififerent from Cicero as Seneca was, reproduc- 
 ing him neither in words, nor structure, nor clearness, nor 
 ornamentation, nor elegance. 
 
 Bu. — Do you consider Livy worthy the honor? 
 
 No. — In the first place he is a historian, in the second place 
 he is careless in style, and has been criticised for his Patavinity. 
 
 Bu. — I do not dare now to suggest Cornelius Tacitus. 
 
 No. — It isn't worth while. 
 
 Bu. — Perhaps you will allow Quintilian in your list. 
 
 No. — He really strove to be unlike Cicero; but I wish his 
 IDeclamationes were extant, for the writings which we possess 
 have the faintest suggestion of Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — But I have one you would not scorn, Quintus Curtius. 
 
 No. — He is a historian. 
 
 Bu. — Yes, but in his histories there are some orations. 
 
90 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — He is a more promising candidate than the others, but 
 nothing, they say, to the swine of Parmeno. He has many tricks 
 of style different from Cicero. > 
 
 Bu. — If you reject him, you will not accept, I prestune, Aelius 
 Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Vulcacius 
 Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio, Flavius Vopiscus, or Aurelius 
 Victor. 
 
 No. — In these there is scarcely anything which you would 
 commend, except historical fidelity. They are so far from 
 deserving the name of Ciceronians that they ill preserve the 
 purity of the Latin tongue. 
 
 Bu. — Well, here is ^Probus Aemelius ! 
 
 No. — He praises fair-mindedly all whose biographies he writes 
 so that you might call him eulogist more fittingly than historian. 
 
 Bu. — Perhaps you will accept Ammianus Marcellinus? 
 
 No. — Slow of speech, but with style approaching the poetic, 
 when he urges us to give up our captives. I should accept , 
 more quickly Velleius Paterculus, and yet I do not deem even 
 him worthy this honor. 
 
 Bu. — You will not grant the honor, I suppose, to the com- 
 pilers of epitomes, — Florus, Eutropius, and SoUnus? 
 
 No. — I will if any scholar recognizes them as such, but on 
 this ground, because they reflect what they imitate. 
 
 Bu. — But I must go back. We have omitted the two Scipios. 
 I know you will not allow the elder to be mentioned here. Per- 
 haps you will the younger? 
 
 No. — No, indeed, the censors of this case especially forbid 
 his letters to be read by youths, lest they become Plinians, in- 
 stead of Ciceronians. 
 
 Bu. — But he wrote a pretty clever speech in praise of Trajan. 
 
 No. — Very clever, but not Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — I purposely omit the poets, easily divining your answer, 
 if I should bring forward the most illustrious and charming of 
 all, — Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, and Martial. 
 
 No. — In Horace there is not a trace of Cicero ; in Vergil some, 
 though faint. Ovid might be the Cicero of the poets. Lucan 
 is more orator than poet though very different from Cicero. 
 Martial comes very close to the charm of Ovid and something of 
 Ciceronian praise he could have won, if he had not prefaced sev- 
 
 'Comelius Nepos. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 91 
 
 eral of his books with letters — Goodness knows how different 
 from Cicero's! 
 
 Bu. — What if I should suggest Lucretius? 
 
 No. — At the same time bring forth Ennius and Lucilius. 
 
 Bu. — Scholars admire the fair phrases of Aulus Gellius. 
 
 No. — Neither his themes nor his language pleases. His speech 
 is affected and verbose, his range of subjects is meagre. 
 
 Bu. — Consider Macrobius. 
 
 No. — He's exactly the poor little crow of Aesop. From the 
 patches of others he has woven his patchwork, so his own tongue 
 does not speak ; and if ever it should, you would think a Greekling 
 were stammering Latin. An example of this you will find in the 
 Second Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. All his wisdom 
 is borrowed and as old as Homer. 
 
 Bu. — Well, some admire Symmachus who is clever in his let- 
 ters. 
 
 No. — Let them admire him who prefer a labored style. 
 
 Bu. — But hold, we have passed Apuleius by! 
 
 No. — I shall compare him with Cicero when I may compare 
 a jackdaw with a nightingale. 
 
 Bu. — That may be true in reference to his Golden Ass and 
 Florida, but he approaches Cicero at least in his Apology. 
 
 No. — Yes, he approaches but still is far behind. But you 
 have forgotten Martianus Capella also, if you care to include 
 such as he. 
 
 Bu. — Suppose we take up those who are half Christians. What 
 do you think of Boethius? 
 
 No. — A worthy philosopher, not a mean poet, but far removed 
 from Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — What about Ausonius? 
 
 No. — I grant him talent and training, but his style smacks of 
 the pleasure and licentiousness of the court just as does his life : 
 instead of being a Ciceronian, he seems to have designedly spoken 
 in different fashion. If one, therefore, should call him a Ciceron- 
 ian one would disgrace instead of honor him, just as you would 
 if you should call him a German who wished to be counted a 
 Frenchman even if he were a German. 
 
 Bu. — To make a long journey short, let us come, if you please, 
 to the Christians and see if we may find perchance some one who 
 deserves to be called a Ciceronian. I suppose you will approve 
 
92 Ciceronianus 
 
 of Lactantius who is reputed to send forth a lactean stream of 
 Ciceronian eloquence. 
 
 No. — Reputed yes, but by one who was not a Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — But this you cannot deny ,that Lactantius strove for the 
 eloquence of Cicero. The preface of the third book of the 
 Institutiones declares this, where intent upon the truth of the 
 Christian philosophy he longs for eloquence, if not Ciceronian, 
 at least approximately Ciceronian. 
 
 No. — And certainly he did not try without some success, though 
 he did not attain his desire. 
 
 Bu. — How so? 
 
 No. — For he said in the very first of the preface of that work : 
 ^Alioqui nihil inter Deum hominemque distaret, si consilia et 
 dispositiones illius majestatis aeternae cogitatio assequeretur hu- 
 mana. When did Cicero ever use dispositiones for decreta? 
 
 Bu. — By no means has he become unlike Cicero in his desire 
 to be a Ciceronian. For it is a characteristic of Cicero to em- 
 phasize a thing by two words meaning the same, or almost the 
 same. This is the reason for the words, consilia et dispositiones. 
 Who knows but that he seized upon the hiatus in consilia atque 
 and again in cogitatio assequeretur in order to be Ciceronian? 
 Perhaps he had in mind the rhythm too, finishing the clause with 
 the close of a scazon, as in balneatore and archipirata. Endings 
 of this kind he frequently uses in the same preface, as in the very 
 first sentence, inhaerere, and again instruere possimus, and soon 
 apud Graecos, luce orationis ornata, and honesta suscepta, and 
 immediately after honorasti, then soon after nominis tradas, and 
 ut sequerentur hortarer, likewise a little after, reliquerunt. That 
 certainly is Ciceronian which frequently ends in a double trochee, 
 as contulerunt, convocamus, sopiamus, inchoamus ; and once in 
 the close of a period he puts quaesisse zndeatur. This shows that 
 he tried very hard to imitate Cicero. But, with some justice you 
 refuse Luctantius the title of Ciceronian on the ground that he 
 did not bring to the defense of the Christian philosophy the eru- 
 dition, vigor, and feeling that Cicero brought to the pleading of 
 civil cases. 
 
 Bu. — In what order shall I present the rest? Shall Cyprian 
 be first? 
 
 ^"OtTierwise there would be no difference between God and man, if human thoxight 
 could attain to the plans and disposition of that divine power." 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 93 
 
 No. — He wrote as a Christian rather than as a Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu.— Hilary? 
 
 No. — Soho! Nothing like. He is tedious and obscure and 
 raises himself on his Gallic buskin, as they say, dragging with 
 him many words that are not of Ciceronian purity. 
 
 Bu. — 'Sulpicius, I presume, will seem worthy of this honor? 
 
 No. — He is indeed more delicate, more pleasing, clearer, and 
 more spontaneous than Hilary, but his language declares him to 
 be a Frenchman. Piety is not lacking but force and dignity 
 are. He has a florid rather than a vigorous style. 
 
 Bu. — You will admit Tertullian? 
 
 No. — You are jesting. He purposely and consciously hid good 
 thoughts under mean words and was even more rugged than 
 Apuleius himself. 
 
 Bu. — Certainly you will not reject that most eloquent and 
 learned St. Jerome? 
 
 No. — I recognize in him a man distinguished for learning and 
 eloquence. I do not recognize a Ciceronian who has to be driven 
 from the imitation of Cicero by a scourge. 
 
 Bu. — St. Augustine then? 
 
 No. — He is like Cicero in that he makes his periods very long 
 and involved. But he is not so clever in breaking up the ex- 
 tended structure of his oration into divisions nor has he Cicero's 
 ready speech and felicity in handling subjects. 
 
 Bu. — Paulinus ? 
 
 No. — He shows hardly a vestige of Cicero — commonplace in 
 thoughts and words. 
 
 Bu. — St. Ambrose then. 
 
 No. — You cite a Roman orator, not a Ciceronian. He de- 
 lights in clever allusions and general reflections, expresses him- 
 self only in aphorisms, abounds in rhythmical divisions and 
 clauses and nicely balanced periods, has his own inimitable style 
 but it is very different from Cicero's. 
 
 Bu. — At least acknowledge Pope Gregory I. 
 
 No. — I recognize in him a pious and sincere man. He is more 
 like Cicero than St. Ambrose but his speech flows sluggishly and 
 shows the influence of Isocrates, which is foreign to Cicero, for 
 in his boyhood he had been so trained in the schools. 
 
 Bu. — Every one marvels at the eloquence of Pope Leo. 
 
94 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — His language is, I admit, rhythmical, clear and sensible, 
 but not Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — What if I should suggest St. Bernard of Burgundy. 
 
 No. — I recognize in him a good man, which is a requisite for 
 an orator, naturally disposed to refined and pleasing speech but 
 so far from being a Ciceronian that you would scarcely gather 
 from his writings that he had ever even read Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Since you have rejected St. Bernard, I should not dare 
 to propose to you Bede, Remi, Claudius, Hesychius, Anselm, 
 Isidore. 
 
 No. — Do not mention those Ko\o^<uTas' for their translations 
 are miserable and their native speech worse. In them eloquence 
 languished. 
 
 Bu. — I fear you will say died if I mention those who lived 
 later. I shall omit therefore Alexander of Hales, Peter of Ghent, 
 and innumerable writers of this calibre. I will suggest two 
 KopvfjmCovi,' Bonaventure and Thomas. 
 
 No. — Bonaventure is fluent enough in his way ; while Thomas 
 is a true Aristotelian or-a^s,* aiming only to instruct the reader. 
 
 Bu. — That is true in investigations ; but when he becomes rhe- 
 torician or poet you see the spirit of Cicero distinctly enough. 
 
 No. — Poet you say? Nowhere does he seem less eloquent 
 than when he aims at oratorical fluency in the handling of the 
 Eucharist. But come, to dismiss those scholastic theologians in 
 whom you will seek in vain for any, much less Ciceronian, elo- 
 quence. Present others if you have them. 
 
 Bu. — Well, we will come back to another class of writers nearer 
 to our own time. For several generations eloquence seems to 
 have died out entirely, but not so long ago it began to come to 
 life among the Italians, then later among our own people. And 
 thus, the chief of the reflowering eloquence seems to have been 
 the Italian, Francesco Petrarch, celebrated and great in his time, 
 but now scarcely read — a man of burning genius, wide knowl- 
 edge, and extraordinary eloquence. 
 
 No. — I admit it. And yet there are times when he halts in 
 the use of Latin and his whole diction smacks of the rudeness of 
 the preceding age. Moreover, who would call one a Ciceronian 
 who did not even strive for the distinction? 
 
 ^Mutilators- 
 
 2 Eminent men- 
 
 3 Without passion. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 95 
 
 Bu. — There's no use then in suggesting Biondo and Boccaccio, 
 who were inferior to Petrarch, both in eloquence and in the 
 understanding of Latin. Nor even Giovanni Tortelli. 
 No. — No, indeed! 
 
 Bu. — He had a host of learned followers who eagerly set them- 
 selves to the imitation of Cicero. Do you consider any of them 
 worthy of the name ? Francesco Filelf o ? 
 
 No. — Evidently he would be if he had pleased all as well as 
 he pleased himself. He tried industriously to imitate Cicero 
 but not very successfully. When he tried hardest, he failed most 
 completely ; for example, in his orations. Now in his letters there 
 is some suggestion of Cicero. I would not have you think that 
 I have meant to disparage these men. I recognize them as worthy 
 of immortality and as having done great service to literature, but 
 it is something divine to be a Ciceronian. 
 Bu. — ^Leonardo Aretido seems to me a second Cicero. 
 No. — In ready speech and clearness he is much like Cicero, 
 but he lacks Cicero's strength and some of his other virtues. He 
 rarely gets a glimpse of pure Latinity. Aside from this, he is 
 as learned as he is good. - 
 
 k Bu. — Guarino, I know well enough you would not allow, or 
 R/apo, or Acciaiolo, or Antonio Beccaria, or Francesco Barbatius, 
 For Antonio Tudertino, or Leonardus Justinianus, or Achille 
 teocchi, or others whose names do not occur to me, especially since 
 fmost of them we know only through their translating from the 
 Greek where originality, the chief part of eloquence, has no 
 I place. 
 
 No. — I scorn none of them yet I deem none worthy of the ' 
 honor. , 
 
 y, Bu. — I will present the Florentine, Poggio, a man of rather 
 I spirited style. 
 
 I No. — He had natural ability enough but little training and 
 J:iometimes his speech lacked purity, if we are to believe Lorenzo 
 Valla. 
 Bu. — Then let us substitute Valla. 
 
 No. He uses the purest idiom of all and is the most polished 
 
 but he approaches nearer to the carefulness and subtlety of 
 Quintilian than to the careless ease of Cicero. 
 
 I 'Leonordo Bnini. 
 
96 Ciceroniantis 
 
 Bu. — I consciously am passing over many whom I know you 
 will not listen to and am proposing only the exceptional. If you 
 confer the honor of this name upon any one at all, you will 
 certainly grant it to Ermolao Barbaro the Great. 
 
 Xo. — You have introduced a truly great and divine man, but 
 ver\- imlike Cicero in style and more labored almost than Quin- 
 tiUan himself and Pliny whose eloquence the study of philosophy 
 injured somewhat. 
 
 Bu. — What about Giovanni Pico della Mirandola? 
 
 Xo. — You mention an almost divine talent, an vmbounded gen- 
 ius, but one whose zeal for language, philosophy and even theol- ' 
 ogy has marred his eloquence. ' 
 
 Bu. — ^You know his namesake, Francesco? 
 
 Xo. — 'Ou8' ryyus,' as the saying is, too much a philosopher and 
 theologian, otherwise a great man. But how does it happen that 
 you count him among the Ciceronians, when in his dispute with 
 Pietro Bembo, he denoimced the devotees of Cicero? 
 
 Bu. — Granting that cxie can be too much of a tlieologian, yon 
 have praised him most highly. 
 
 Xo. — One can be for the gaining of this palm. 
 
 Bu. — The chances are that there is one, tmless I am mistaken, 
 to be found whom you will not reject — Angelo Politian. For 
 Marsilio Fidno I do not dare to introduce. 
 
 Xo. — I confess that Angelo was of perfectly angelic mind, a 
 rare miracle of nature in any field he has tried ; but when com- 
 pared to Cicero's style he is as nothing. His virtues are of a very 
 different kind. 
 
 Bu. — Suppose I put into the list Codrus Urceo, George of 
 Trebizonde, Theodore Gaza, John Lascaris, George Merula, Mar- 
 cus Musurus, Marullo. I can almost guess your answer. You 
 would bar from this contest the whole race of Greeks because 
 you would say they hated your beloved Cicero. But no senti- 
 ment of anger, hate, or love should influence this election. 
 
 Xo. — Nor shall it. ,We must speak rather guardedly of John 
 Lascaris, since he is still alive. He is a man of courteous man- 
 ner, good breeding, and keen judgment. His epigrams are very 
 clever. He might have been a promising candidate for Ciceron- 
 ianism, if business of the state had not diverted his mind. Codrus 
 Urelo had no skill in Latin nor culture. A man of the Epicureaa 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 97 
 
 type, he troubled not himself about a prize which is as difficult 
 to obtain as it is uncommon. George of Trebizonde, I acknowl- 
 edge, is a remarkably learned man who has done noble service 
 to letters, and yet Theodore Gaza is more finished. The one 
 has devoted himself to Cicero, the other to Aristotle ; and no one 
 has made more elegant translations, whether from Greek into 
 Latin or Latin into Greek, than George of Trebizonde. When he 
 gpeaks his own tongue, however, two definite things annoy the 
 fastidious reader: his zeal for philosophy, in which he was ab- 
 sorbed ; and that yvi/orun/' of the Greek which is hard to unlearn. 
 
 Bu. — What hinders a Greek from mastering Latin, if a Briton 
 or a Frisian can ? Especially when the Greek language, not only 
 in words but also in figures, has most affinity to the Latin? 
 ! No. — ^What the Britons and the Frisians have done I leave to 
 others. Affinity seems to me to stand in the way of purity. 
 SMore quickly will an Irishman speak pure Latin than a French- 
 man or a Spaniard. More quickly will a Frenchman learn to 
 |)peak pure German than he will learn to speak Italian or Span- 
 ish. However, I shall proceed. George Merula is an Alexan- 
 drine. I do not know whether he is a Greek or not but his 
 fGreek translations are so fine that he can be compared favorably 
 with many of the classical scholars. I have read a few things by 
 Marullo which would be tolerable if they contained less paganism. 
 Marcus Musurus I know better. He is a remarkably well in- 
 formed man, somewhat obscure and aiifected in his poetry, and 
 leaving nothing, so far as I know, in prose, except one or two 
 prefaces. I used to wonder how a Greek knew so much Latin. 
 He did little writing, because he was summoned, to Rome by 
 Pope Leo to the office of archbishop and soon after died. 
 
 Bu. — You will accept Pomponio Leto then? 
 '. No. — Content with the elegance of Latin conversation he 
 learned nothing else. 
 
 Bu.— Well, Platina? 
 
 No. — He would have been a worthy historian if he had lighted 
 upon a happier theme. In his optimus civis and Panegyricus he 
 resembled Cicero but not enough to earn the name of Ciceronian. 
 In general, he was a learned man, versatile, and, I think, good. 
 . Bu, — What of Filippo Beroaldo, the Elder? I see you shake 
 your head. I knew it. 
 
 'Accent, 
 
98 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — I will assent if you recommend him to me as a man 
 of unusual merit in the realm of literature but if you demand 
 that he be enrolled in the list of Ciceronians I must say no. 
 Filippo BeroaJdo, the Younger, stands a better chance, although 
 he has made but small contribution to letters. 
 
 Bu. — In vain do I enumerate Giorgio Valla, Christophoro Lan- 
 dino, Mancinelli, Peter Marsus, Baptista Pius, Cornelio Vitelli, 
 Nicolo Leoniceno and Leonico, Bartolommeo Scala, Paolo Cortesi, 
 Pietro Crinito, Jacopo Antiquario. 
 
 No. — What a hodgepodge! Do not mention Mancinelli, 
 Vitelli, and Marsi, when style is the subject for discussion. Bap- 
 tista Pius tried for a style of his own. Scala in his own esti- 
 mation was a Ciceronian but in that of Politian he had not even 
 common sense, much less Latin scholarship. Paolo Cortesi I 
 will discuss later. Pietro Crinito is a scholar yet he falls far 
 short of being a Ciceronian. Leoniceno is a physician, not a 
 rhetorician. Leonico ever busied in the sanctuaries of philosophy, 
 especially in those of Plato, set himself to imitating the dialogues 
 of Plato and Cicero and gained as much eloquence as we could 
 expect from a philosopher ; but he would not desire to be called 
 a Ciceronian, I'm sure, for he is a man of rectitude as well as of 
 profound learning. 
 
 Bu. — What of Domizio Calderino? 
 
 No. — He had a good start and would have stood a fair chance 
 if dissipation at Rome and death had not cut him off in his 
 youth. 
 
 Bu. — Next Scipio Carteromacho. 
 
 No. — I recognize in him a man without ostentacion, and versed 
 in both Latin and Greek, but from his writings it does not appear 
 that he aimed at Ciceronian eloquence. 
 
 Bu. — You will not reject, I suppose, Girolamo Donato, the noble 
 Venetian ? 
 
 No. — His letters — about the only thing of his we have — show 
 that he could have accomplished anything he turned his mind to 
 but politics distracted him from literary work. 
 
 Bu. — ^Antonio Sabellicus ? 
 
 No. — I acknowledge he has natural ability and some skill in 
 speaking. And he uses his rhetoric not unsuccessfully at times. 
 He has done brilliant work in that kind of history which calls 
 for his particular style. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 99 
 
 Bu. — Thus far the host of dead. Now we ought, as they say, 
 to remember the living, of whom perhaps you will hesitate to say 
 what you think. 
 
 No. — Not at all, since I admit that this measure of praise has 
 been the good fortune of practically no one up to the present 
 time 
 
 Bu. — You know Paolo Aemilio? 
 
 No. — The man's profound learning, painstaking care, purity of 
 life, and entire trustworthiness in history, I greatly admire. 
 Ciceronian style he neither aimed at nor has. 
 
 Bu. — I bring Battista Egnazio. 
 
 No. — ^You have mentioned a man as honest and blameless as 
 
 he is learned and eloquent but to whom the votes of the doctors 
 
 deny the honor of the Ciceronian name. He preferred to speak 
 
 |leamedly rather than in Ciceronian style and he gained what he 
 
 \ wished. 
 
 Bu. — See, I bring to you Paolo Bombasio. 
 
 (No. — Indeed I admire Paolo Bombasio, a man of absolutely 
 golden heart, the best friend in the world ; but, on account of his 
 health, he did not indulge much in writing. Of sensitive nature, 
 l^he was soon offended at the wicked contentions of mean rivals. 
 He taught Greek at Bologna for a salary; devoted himself to 
 the business of the state ; and, when at length summoned to Rome, 
 he preferred to increase his estate rather than to grow old in 
 ^letters. 
 
 Bu. — Perhaps you will be more favorable to younger men. 
 What do you think of Andria Alciati? 
 
 No. — I will give you the opinion of scholars who knew the man 
 better than I. The virtues which Cicero divided between Quin- 
 tus Scaevola and Marcus Crassus, the one of whom he called the 
 most legal minded of orators and the other the most eloquent of 
 lawyers, both in this one man are said to meet. His power of 
 eloquence we have seen in the preface of Cornelius Tacitus. For 
 in the Annotations he meant to teach, not to speak as an orator. 
 
 Bu. — We have omitted few Italians, I suppose, worthy of men- 
 ftioning. But Jerome Aleander, who was recently a favorite of 
 Clement VII and Archbishop of Brundusium, ought not to be 
 overlooked. 
 
 No. — His ability is not sufificiently clear from what he has writ- 
 ten ; for few of his things have been published and in these par- 
 
lOO Ciccroijiaiius 
 
 ticular ones he docs not seem to have striveii for Ciceronianisni. 
 For a long time business of state turned him in a ditterent direc- 
 tion and, tliough he was skilled in botli Latin and Greek, he was 
 absolutely unworthy the honor because a slave to business. 
 
 Bu. — Indeed I think Albert, Prince of Carpi, approached nearer 
 to Ciceronian phrase than Aleander. He has written notliing. so 
 far as I know, except a single book, or, if you prefer, a lengthy 
 letter in answer to Erasmus, and even of tliis some declare posi- 
 tively tliat he is not tlie autlior. 
 
 No. — Wliatever his merits, he approaclies Cicero just so far 
 as one nia\' who has been trained from his youtli in Uieologr)' and 
 philosophy. 
 
 Bu. — You see how many writers of most celebrated name I 
 have called to mind, Nosoponus, no one of whcaii you admit to 
 have attained tlie dignit\- of a Ciceronian. Perchance some 
 escape me. Suggest if you know any, Hj'pologus. 
 
 Hyp. — The two Cselii, Rhodiginus and Calcagini you have in- 
 tentionally omitted? 
 
 Bu. — Certainly not intentionally. 
 
 No. — Rhodiginus was a good man and widely read but not to 
 be entered in tlie contest of eloquence at all ; Calcagini was not 
 only superior in eloquence but also in learning, of elegant and 
 ornate style, but smacking somewhat of scholastic philosophy 
 which does not hinder him from being numbered among tlie elo- 
 quent but bars him from tlie Ciceronians. 
 
 Bu. — A very few I pass b}- consciously, to tlie mention of 
 whom our discussion will naturally bring us around at a more 
 fitting time. Meantime, if you please, let us go across for a 
 little while into France, always most tlourishing in letters, to 
 bring up for consideration at least the principal ones who have 
 recently won a reputation for eloquence through their writings. 
 Robert Gaguin not so vcr\- long ago was very popular, more 
 however, on account of his speeches than his writings. 
 
 No. — Yes, but in his own age. Now he would hardly be 
 counted a Latin scholar. 
 
 Bu. — \\'hat if I should introduce the two brothers Ferdinand? 
 
 No. — I would not allow it. 
 
 Bu. — Jonvcnncanx Gui? 
 
 No. — Much less. 
 
 Bu. — Jodocus Badius? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking loi 
 
 No. — More quickly I should admit him into the contest than 
 Apuleius, for his attempts have not been fruitless ; he has abihty 
 and skill and would have attained greater success if domestic 
 cares and avarice had not interrupted the leisure conducive to the 
 Muses and necessary for an aspirant to this honor. 
 
 Bu. — Perhaps the honor of this title you will grant to Guillaume 
 Bude, the glory of France. 
 
 No. — Why should I grant what he does not strive for and 
 would not recognize if I should? Still, he deserves admiration 
 in other respects for his great and varying gifts. 
 
 Bu. — ^Jacob Faber is very highly esteemed. 
 
 No. — ^A good man and a scholar but one who preferred to 
 speak in the language of theology rather than in that of Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Jean Pins i>erchance you will take. 
 
 No. — He might have been numbered among the competitors if 
 the stress of business and ecclesiastical office had not turned him 
 away from his studies. Once indeed at Bologna he demonstrated 
 his power when he made offerings to the Muses. Now, I hear, 
 he has been made a bishop and what increase of eloquence has 
 come to him I do not know. Perchance he has gained more 
 learning than honorable employment. 
 
 Bu. — Do you recognize Nicolas Berauld? 
 
 No. — I recognize that he is not unlike Pins in spontaneity but 
 he has never directed his strength to Ciceronian style. He is 
 more successful in speaking than in writing. I divine perfectly 
 well his abilities but he is rather inclined to be lazy. 
 
 Bu. — Franciscus Deloinus I should not hesitate to suggest, if 
 he could have shown himself as great in oration or essay as in 
 letters written extemporaneously to friends. It would surely 
 have seemed strange if he had wasted almost his whole life in 
 Accursiis, Bartholis, ac Baldis, and if in his old age he had 
 fortunately grown young again in more polite letters. Death 
 recently has called him away; timely for himself because he was 
 an old man, but prematurely for letters because he seemed des- 
 tined to their elevation and adornment. If Lazare de Baif, who 
 by a single little essay on clothes won great renown and raised 
 the highest hopes, only had gone on as he began! Although 
 fitted for teaching, he preferred to be witty as it seems, and a 
 representative of the Attic school rather than a Ciceronian. 
 
I02 Ciccroitianus 
 
 Bu. — There occurs to me at this moment a pair, by no means,. 
 1 fancy, to be scorned. You know Qaude Chansonnette of 
 Metz, and Cornelius Scepper? 
 
 Xo. — Both, intimately. Giansonnette is of a playful turn of 
 mind, sings most sweetly any theme whatever, especially in prose ; 
 in poetry I do not know his ability. Not unsuccessfully does he 
 imitate Cicero. The fluency, perspicuity, wealth of language, and 
 wit of Cicero he has almost attained, and though for a long time 
 he has been playing a vivacious role in the legations of princes, 
 in spite of the fact that this task requires the deepest quiet, he 
 has conquered himself, just as if he took all the Muses as his 
 companions with him when flitting over land and sea. He has 
 tliis remarkable distinction, viz.. that he has combined eloquence 
 with knowledge of law and philosophy. Scepperus in addition 
 to skill in every department of learning weaves with equal facility 
 poetry and prose even though he now for a long time has been 
 taking active part in ptolitics. 
 
 Bu. — ^^^'hat do you think of Ruel? 
 
 Xo. — That which is worthy of a man most skilled in medical 
 lore and most religiouslj' faithful in translating Greek authors. 
 This kind of a reputation he preferred to being called a Ciceron- 
 ian. 
 
 Bu. — But where must I place Peter ^losellanus of Treves, 
 among the Germans or the French? 
 
 Xo, — That has nothing to do, surely, w4th our present dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Bu. — ^Among the Ciceronians? 
 
 Xo. — I admire his scholarship, equal in Latin and Greek, his 
 practical knowledge, his pure and unalloyed genius, his untiring 
 care, his lively, figurative, and clear diction. Much would have 
 been expected of him if he had not died in his youth, when just 
 entering the contest for this honor, causing sorrow to all schol- 
 ars and a great loss to letters. 
 
 Bu. — From France then, if you please, let us turn to England, 
 the fortunate nurse of geniuses. But hold, I had almost for- 
 gotten German Brixius. You would not ignore a man equally 
 skilled in Latin and Greek, in poetry and prose, and successful 
 in Latin translations of Greek. A\ill you then class Brixius 
 among Ciceronians? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 103 
 
 No. — ^Although he is still in the heat of the race and has at- 
 tained fluency and clearness, yet he is unlike Cicero in some 
 things, but in such things that he may have hope, if, as at present, 
 he goes on devoting himself wholly to this study. Meantime, I 
 like to applaud him because he is running zealously. 
 
 Bu. — Now then into England; and, since she has so many 
 .candidates, I will name only those who have sought fame through 
 their writings. If I cite William Grocyn, you will say that there 
 is nothing extant of his except a single letter, very carefully ela- 
 borated, clever, and in good Latin. Fitted for epistolary clever- 
 ness, he loved brevity and propriety ; you would call him a repre- 
 sentative oi the Attic School in this surely, for he aimed at noth- 
 ing else and could not endure Cicero's fulness of expression. He 
 was laconic not only in writing but also in speaking. There- 
 fore I shall not urge his claims. But I do not hesitate to propose 
 Thomas Linacre. 
 
 No. — I know him as a man of excellent training but so dis- 
 posed toward Cicero that, if he could have been like either he 
 pleased, he would have preferred Quintilian to Cicero. Thus, 
 you see, he was not much more kindly disposed toward Cicero 
 than the common run of Greeks are. Urbanity he never strives 
 for; he surpasses an Attic in the repression of his feelings; 
 brevity and elegance he loves, and he is extremely didactic. He 
 studiously copies Aristotle and Quintilian. You may attribute 
 him as much praise as you wish but he cannot be called a Ciceron- 
 ian for he has studied to be unlike Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — There is Richard Pace. 
 
 No. — He indeed could have been counted among the candidates 
 for Ciceronian eloquence, if the speed of extemporaneous writing 
 had not been too alluring and if the business of popes and kings 
 had not distracted him in his youth and, almost buried him in 
 worldly cares. 
 
 Bu. — I will leave England when I have mentioned Thomas 
 More. 
 
 No. — A most fortunate genius. I confess there is nothing he 
 could not have accomplished if he had devoted himself wholly 
 to letters. But in his boyhood scarcely a trace of the better litera- 
 ture had crossed into England. Then the authority of his parents 
 compelled him to learn English Law, the farthest possible from 
 literature; next he was exercised in pleading cases, then called 
 
I04 Ciceratttanus 
 
 to the duties of the state. With difficulty he could at odd hours 
 turn his attention to the study of oratory. Finally he was dragged 
 into Court and immersed in the business of the King and the 
 Kingdom where he could love study but not cultivate it. Though 
 the style he gained tended rather to Isocratic ifajrtfam and k^^cal 
 subtlety' than to the outpouring river of Ciceronian doquence, 
 yet he is not inferior at all in culture to Cicero. Furthermore 
 you recognize a poet even in his prose ior in his youth he spent 
 much time in writing poetry. 
 
 Bu. — ^Then let us leave EJigland for I will not mention William 
 Latimer or R^inald Pole — one of whom, a pious man, preferred 
 to be prescient in theolog}' rather than in the eloquence of Gcexo, 
 and the other, though a verj- great admirer and not a bad imita- 
 tor of Cicero, has not cared to publish anything over his own 
 name but has shown his ability in private letters. In other lines, 
 England has imramerable youths of the highest hopes. We are, 
 however, playing the part of the censor, not the soothsayer. 
 Yet what wonder that youth flowers there where the King him- 
 self not only encourages talent by prizes but also spurs it on 
 by his example, alread}' having testified in two pam^ilets bis 
 love of pirty and shown his goiius and his doquence. 
 
 Xo. — ^I have admired those essays very much and thCT are 
 not 50 different from Cicero except that the theme and rojral 
 dignity seem to require their own peculiar style. 
 
 Bu. — AVhat then remains except to sail over to Holland? 
 
 Xo. — ^First to Scotland, I vote. 
 
 Bu. — I should not care, if I thought there was any one there 
 whom you would consider. I'd rather go to Denmark for she 
 has given to us Saxo Grammaticus who wrote a ^oidid history 
 of that people. 
 
 Xo. — I admire so much his livdy and burning genius, his ra{nd, 
 flowing speech, his wonderful wealth of words, his numerous 
 aphorisms, his wonderful variety of figures that I cannot wonder 
 enough where a Dane of that age got so great power of doquence; 
 yet 3-0U will find scarcdy a trace of Cicero in him. 
 
 Bu. — Xow to Holland. 
 
 Xo. — Xo, to Zeland first, lest you slight some one. 
 
 Bu. — ^That land too has produced ^dllful minds Irat most of 
 them are buried in luxury. Thence if you will I shall brii^ 
 Adrian van Barland, in whose writings you can rect^nize the 
 purin" and ease of Cicero. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 105 
 
 No. — He approximates Cicero,. to be sure, in those qualities, 
 but not in all. 
 
 Bu. — From Zeland it is an easy journey to Holland, prolific 
 parent of native genius ; but no honor is paid there to eloquence 
 and pleasures do not easily allow talent to mature. From there 
 I will bring Erasmus of Rotterdam, if you will allow. 
 
 No. — ^You profess to speak of writers. I do not call him a 
 writer, much less a Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — What do I hear? Anyway he was counted among the 
 
 No. — ^Yes, if a iroXvypa^os is one who smears a g^eat quantity 
 of paper with ink. It is a different thing to write in the sense 
 in which we are using the term, and writers make up a different 
 class. Otherwise those who make money by transcribing books 
 with the hand might be called writers, though scholars prefer to 
 call them scribes. But that is writing in my mind which brings 
 fruit from the field. Reading corresponds to the- fertilizing; 
 digesting and correcting corresponds to the harrowing, digging, 
 trenching, pruning, pulling out of tares, and the rest of the work 
 without which neither the seed will sprout nor, after sprouting, 
 grow. 
 
 Bu. — AA'hat then is your opinion of Erasmus? 
 
 No. — He degrades and hurries everything; he does not give 
 natural birth to his creations ; sometimes he writes a whole vol- 
 ume at one sitting ; nor can he ever have patience to read over even 
 once what he has written ; and he does nothing but write, notwith- 
 standing the fact that not till after long reading should one 
 come to writing and then but seldom. What of the fact too that 
 he not even tries for Ciceronian style but uses theological words 
 and sometimes even vidgarisms? 
 
 Bu. — ^^'illiam Gaudanus was terser. 
 
 No. — Brief as an Attic in his letters, good in poetry, but — 
 O accursed ease ! how much of fine natural ability do you either 
 spoil or utterly destroy ! 
 
 Bu. — You know Gilles de Delft? 
 
 No. — A man of wide learning, not a bad versifier, if he had 
 added strength to facility. 
 
 Bu. — ^lartin Dorpius died but recently. 
 
 'Writers o£ many books. 
 
io6 Ciceronianus 
 
 No. — Fruitful, versatile, and inclined to elegance, but prefer- 
 ring to be led by others' counsels. Finally, theology separated 
 him from the Muses. 
 
 Bu. — ^What do you think of Jacob Ceratinus? 
 
 No. — He gave promise but is far from a Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — Thence then, if you please, let us journey together into 
 Friesland. For that country produces minds absolutely white, 
 as the saying goes. But Como is ill suited to the Muses. There- 
 fore I shall omit the Langes, and the Canters ; Rodolph Agricola 
 alone is a sufficient representative. 
 
 No. — I recognize in him a man of divine heart, of profound 
 learning, of no common style, genuine, strong, painstaking, 
 orderly, but smacking somewhat of Quintilian in style and of 
 Isocrates in structure, yet more sublime than either, also more 
 fluent and clearer than Quintilian. He accompKshed his aim and 
 I do not doubt that he could have portrayed Cicero if he had 
 wished. And yet there were certain other things that stood in 
 the way of his attaining this highest reputation — the misfortune 
 of place and time, for in his day and country practically no honor 
 at all was paid to polite letters and the national life was extrava- 
 gant. In Italy he could have excelled but he preferred Germany. 
 
 Bu. — ^Hayo Hermanns is of the same race. 
 
 No. — A young man of divine talent; yet there is extant no 
 specimen of his power except some letters, unrivalled in purity, 
 healthy tone, and sweetness. He perchance would have gained 
 the palm if he had been as industrious as he was gifted. 
 
 Bu. — I vote that we cross to Westphalia, which has given us 
 Alexander von Heck. 
 
 No. — Yes, you mention one who is learned, pure, and eloquent 
 but who has accomplished nothing great because of his contempt 
 for fame. 
 
 Bu. — Westphalia has given us Hermann von dem Busche also. 
 
 No. — In poetry successful, in prose showing great strength 
 of mind, wide reading, keen judgment^ plenty of force; but his 
 style is more like Quintilian than Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Conrad Goclenius, I presume, you do not know. 
 
 No. — Do you mean him who in Brabant has for so long 
 adorned not only the college Busleidianus — called by some Tri- 
 lingue — ^but also that whole Academy, and who was otherwise 
 most distinguished? 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 107 
 
 Bu. — That very one. 
 
 No. — I know him Kat oIkoOw^ 
 
 Bu. — Do you find any deficiency in him whereby he may not 
 be counted among the Ciceronians? 
 
 No. — I think that that mind could accomplish whatever it 
 seriously wished but he prefers to take life easy rather than 
 to be voluminous. 
 
 Hyp. — I know one point in which he is very unlike Cicero. 
 
 Bu.— What is that? 
 
 Hyp. — We picture Cicero with a long and slender neck. 
 Goclenius had a beautifully plump one, and so short that the 
 chin almost touched his breast. 
 
 Bu. — We are not discussing his neck but his pen. Suppose, 
 however, we leave Westphalia. Saxony has young men of hope 
 and extraordinary promise among whom Christophorus Carle- 
 bitzius is very distinguished on account of the services of his 
 ancestors to the state, and even more on account of his own 
 exemplary character and literary work; but I will not weary 
 you with the enumeration of men whose genius is still growing, 
 who, so to speak, are still in the blade. I will proceed to the 
 other Germans, chief among whom was Reuchlin. 
 
 No. — A great man, but his speech is redolent of his age which 
 was still somewhat rough and unpolished. In the same class are 
 Jacob Wimpheling and others whose works contributed not a 
 little to the literature of Germany. And yet he, in a certain 
 way, had his second youth in his grandson, Jacob Spiegel. 
 
 Bu. — Then you recognize Philip Melancthon as a pupil of 
 Reuchlin ? 
 
 No. — Most successful would he have been if he had devoted 
 himself wholly to the Muses. As it was he exerted himself but 
 little and, content with the gifts of nature, he showed little prac- 
 tice or care in his writing and it may be his health would have 
 failed him if he had tried. He seems naturally fitted for ex- 
 temporaneous speaking but absorbed in other things he seems 
 to have largely given up the study of oratory. 
 
 Bu. — Then let me bring to you Ulrich von Hutten. 
 
 No. — Splendor and wealth enough he shows in prose, more in 
 verse ; but he was far from being the image of Cicero. 
 
 ' Intimately . 
 
io8 Ciceronianus 
 
 Bu. — Bilibaldus I ought to have mentioned before, for under 
 his leadership eloquence first began to flourish in Germany, which 
 he illuminated by the purity of his character and the splendor 
 of his fortune. 
 
 No. — I do not know whether he aspires, surely he has not 
 attained and his native ability is not so much in the way as 
 business of state and poor health, though no one is more worthy 
 of the best. Yet writing so happily without preparation shows 
 how much he might do if he could put his strength to it. 
 
 Bu. — All Germany gives the highest praise to Ulric Zazius. 
 
 No. — Yet less than he merited, for besides an exact knowledge 
 of the law, which is his profession, he has a certain very happy 
 faculty of speaking and writing even extemporaneously so that 
 you might say his speech flows out from some rich spring in 
 good, well-chosen words and sentences unceasingly ; and there is 
 in his writings a youthful alacrity, and. if I may use the term, 
 vivacity which would make you say that it is not the work of 
 an old man you are reading. Yet, withal, he imitates Politian 
 more nearly than Cicero. 
 
 Bu. — Well, from a spot near by I will bring Bruno Amerbach, 
 of Augst than whom nature has never fashioned any more 
 promising. 
 
 No. — As far as one may know from a taste, he would have 
 been great if death had not snatched him away prematurely 
 from his studies. 
 
 Bu. — Henricus Glareanus, the Swiss, you know? 
 
 No. — He preferred to spend his time on philosophy and mathe- 
 matics rather than to imitate Ciceronian phrase, which hardly 
 fits the subtleties of mathematicians. 
 
 Bu. — There is one left whom if you do not accept we shall go 
 across into Pannonia. 
 
 No.— Who? 
 
 Bu. — Ursinus Velius. 
 
 No. — Successful in poetry but not in prose. He has plenty 
 of feeling and culture; but when the history which he is said to 
 be writing on the exploits of King Ferdinand of Pannonia and 
 Bohemia is published we can decide more definitely. 
 
 Bu. — I am certain he will respond with vigor and eloquence 
 to the renown of his chief and his great deeds. Mention of him 
 has brought us into Pannonia, where I know no one except Jacob 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 109 
 
 Piso, a zealous candidate for Ciceronian eloquence, who was first 
 snatched away from us by the Court, then by misfortune, and 
 recently by death itself. 
 
 Xo. — I heard and was much grieved. 
 
 Bu. — ^And Sarmatia has men whom you could not despise, but 
 I shall mention none except those who by publishing have given 
 proof of themselves. Chief among these is Bishop Andreas 
 Critius, who surely has wit at command, as the saying goes, who 
 composes verses happily, even more happily prose, who writes 
 extemporaneously with ease and makes conversation pleasing by 
 his perpetual humor. 
 
 Xo. — ^I have tasted some little bits of his which surely raise 
 in me high hopes, if he is not compelled to give up the leisure 
 needed for the pursuit of the Muses because of embassies of 
 State and Church. 
 
 Bu. — Spain who has begmi to flower again and to vie with her 
 early §^ory has very many learned and eloquent men and a few 
 who have become famous through their writings, among whom 
 is Antonio de Lebrixa, a man of wide knowledge. But the men- 
 ticm of him you would not allow in the catalogue of Ciceronians. 
 
 Xo. — You have guessed rightly. 
 
 Bu. — Not even Lopes, I think, or Sanchez. 
 
 No. — One is a theologian and did not strive for this reputa- 
 tion, the other is much less successful in eulogy than in panegyric, 
 neither the one nor the other is a Ciceronian. 
 
 Bu. — I wonder if you will reject John Louis ^'ives. 
 
 Xo. — Indeed I find lacking in him neither talent, learning, nor 
 memor\- ; he has a ready store of thoughts and words : he was a 
 little too stilted in the beginning, but he grows more eloquent 
 daily: and if neither life nor zeal fail there is hope that he will 
 be numbered among the Ciceronians. There are those however 
 whose attempts at writing come out as the gifts of ilandrabulus. 
 He excels himself daity. He has a versatile mind and thus is 
 fitted especially for public speaking. Yet some of the ^•irtues of 
 Cicero he has not attained, particularly that of pleasing speech 
 and flexibilit}^ 
 
 Bu. — ^-Also I know some learned Portuguese who have given 
 public proof of their genius. But I have direct knowledge of 
 none of them except a certain Hermicus, who is successful at 
 epigram, quick and facile in prose, and of very skillful wit in 
 
no Cicerotuanus 
 
 prattling ; and Genesius, who recently showed great h<^)e of him- 
 self through his pamjMet published at Rcxne. 
 
 See how many lands we have traversed seeking a single Cicer- 
 onian, Xosoponus ; and not one has been found whom you deem 
 worthy of the honor of the name of your lover! How many 
 ancients we have called to mind, how mam- of later ages, how 
 many of the age preceding our own, how many of our own con- 
 temporaries I Some of them, I grant, a fastidious censor would 
 not accept; but many of than have ornamented, illuminated, and 
 ennobled their age, country, church, and literature by their learn- 
 ing and eloquence; and, up to the pr^ent point, we have found 
 no CiceroniaiL What remains for us but to go to the Islands 
 of the Blessed for the purpose of seddog there one to whom we 
 may give this name? 
 
 With more content we sufiEer a misfortune common to alL 
 A Spaniard does not grieve if he has not yellow hair, nor an 
 Indian because he is of sallow complexion, nor an Ethiopian 
 because he is black and his nose is flat Then why do you 
 torture your mind and chafe because you are not a Ciceronian? 
 This may be an ill ; but, if it is, can you not bear an fll common 
 to j'ou and such men as we have maitioned? 
 
 No. — ^But Christophe de Longueil, a native of Brabant and 
 educated among the French, attained the reputation. To him 
 alone on this side the Alps the Italians granted this palm; aU 
 others they cast aside as barbarians. 
 
 Bu. — To be sure De Longueil won highest praise but he won 
 it at too g^eat a price. Long he tortured himself and finally 
 died in the midst of his struggle, causing no small loss to letters 
 to which he would have been in his lifetime of greater use if he 
 had not turned his mind and all his strength of genius to the 
 desire of an empty name. And yet he did not devote himself 
 entirely to Cicero but read ever>- kind of author, studied care- 
 fully all the liberal arts, and had a practical knowledge of law 
 besides. Xor was he content to follow in the footsteps of Cicero, 
 but was seemingly very clever in invention, and fertile, skillful, 
 and happy in argument, never failing to show proof of a genius 
 worthy of admiration. It amounts to nothing that these apes 
 of Cicero throw De Longueil in our teeth; he would have been 
 great for his other gifts, even if he had not been a Ciceronian; 
 and this ver\- ambition for an empty title almost destroyed the 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking iii 
 
 fruit of his studies and finally cost him his life. Still he was 
 very different from Cicero for he lacked the opportunity of exer- 
 cising that wonderful eloquence which Cicero exhibited in grave 
 and serious cases in court. 
 
 . De Longueil published letters, which, though elegant and 
 cleverly wrought, were, I confess, many of them on very trivial 
 subjects and many more were as far-fetched as those of Pliny 
 the Younger. Such products I think ought not to be ranked as 
 letters. Tell me what characteristics of a letter have the 
 Epistolae of Seneca except the name? But you say that in 
 Cicero's letters nothing is far-fetched. Either he writes on 
 weighty and serious business as he would speak in public, 
 or he talks with absent friends on familiar themes or about 
 literary pursuits as friends do in ordinary conversation. What 
 of the fact that he did not publish his letters and that he seems 
 to have written some more carelessly than he was accustomed 
 to talk? Why did a great part of those which Tiro, the f reed- 
 man, collected perish? I think they would not have perished if 
 scholars had judged them worthy of immortality. In the first 
 place then, Cicero's simplicity and charm of unaffected speech; 
 in the second place, his truthfulness is lacking in most of the 
 letters of De Longueil. And inasmuch as neither the fortune 
 nor the business of De Longueil was the same as Cicero's, his 
 imitation lacks fitness and life. To illustrate — Cicero, when a 
 senator and of consular rank, writes to his peers what the gen- 
 erals are doing in the provinces, how the legions are drawn tjp, 
 points out the dangers, and prophesies the outcome ; De Longueil, 
 in imitation of Cicero, writes similar things to learned friends in 
 times of peace and shows anxiety about the outcome of affairs. 
 Do not his efforts fail? Consider that in the privacy of his 
 library he committed to writing most idle rumors such as com- 
 monly float about, unworthy to be mentioned even in the con- 
 versation of sensible men. 
 
 But you say that in the two orations which he left, as if 
 delivered in the Capitol, he has given us Cicero. These, I 
 confess, I have read not only with great admiration but also 
 with great delight ; for they caused me to feel far more 
 than ever before the genius of the man. So much so that, 
 though I had formed a fine opinion of him, he far surpassed 
 my expectation; for he seems to have brought forth in these 
 
1 12 Ciceranianus 
 
 orations whatever power he had of his own and what he had 
 drunk from the orations of Cicero. Yet these speeches which 
 were worked on for so many years, revised so many times, so 
 many times subjected to the censorship of critics, — how httle 
 have they of Cicero! Xo fauh indeed of De Longueil, but of 
 the times. Cicero spoke in perfect keeping with his times, not 
 5o De Longueil; for at Rome today there are neither the Con- 
 script Fathers, nor the Senate, nor the authority of the peofd^ 
 nor the votes of the tribes, nor the r^;ular magistrates, nor the 
 laws, nor the comitia, nor l^al procedure, nor provinces, nor 
 towns, nor allies, nor dXizeas, — ^and Rome, there is no Rome, for 
 there is nothing but ruin and rubbish, scars and tracks of <dd- 
 time calamity. Take away the pope, the cardinals, the Ynshops, 
 the curia and its c&!da\s, the embassadors, the churches, colleges 
 and abbeys, and the rabble — a. part of whran live on trafficking ', 
 and the other part are such as have drifted iAaihex seeking liberty J 
 or fortune — and what will Rome be? You answer that the 
 authority of the Vopes handed down by Christ is grandee ibaa 
 was formerly the rule of the Senate and the Roman Pec^le, or 
 even, if you please, of Octavius Caesar. Suppose it is, only 
 acknowledge that the kind of rule is different. Then you see 
 that the same language will not fit, if we dedde that it is Cicer- 
 onian to fit the language to the present theme But that cele- 
 brated youth fitted his speech to the onotions of men who dream 
 of ancient Rome, rerum dominam gentemque togatam, just as the 
 Jews dream of their Moses and the temple at Jerusalem. Young 
 Christophe was great, I say, not on account of c&ce, or exploits, 
 or for any other reason except for his own ability, which I think 
 i; much finer than if he had ruled a kingdom. 
 
 This however, has nothing to do with Cicero. Back to the case. 
 .\ dispute arose between him and a certain Italian youth, who I 
 suppose, was primed to protect Ciceronian eloquence against the 
 barbarians. And there is, I hear, now a sort of societj- at Rome 
 of such men who have mere learning than piety, who are called 
 scholars and are held in high esteem by many. Through the 
 influence of these idlers the dispute kindled into fires of partisan- 
 ship on both sides, for Rome seeks material for pleasure from 
 ever)- source. As time went on the actions of Luther injured 
 De Longueil; for, on account of Luther, whatever had to do 
 with Germany, in fact any one on this side the Alps, was in bad 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 113 
 
 repute at Rome. Some few, more fair-minded than the others, 
 thought it proper to bestow upon De Longueil the title of Roman 
 citizen, as a mark of honor,' notwithstanding the fact that he was 
 a barbarian by birth — they still use words of this kind as if the 
 whole face of the world had not changed — because of the admir- 
 able elegance of his language. In ancient days this was done 
 and it was a gift as useful as it was honorable. But now, what 
 is it to be Roman citizen? Indeed something less than to be a 
 citizen of Basle. Out of this grew the rivalry of the youth and 
 his coterie against the barbarian De Longueil. The society of 
 idlers sought satisfaction by having De Longueil plead his case 
 in the Capitol (for so they called the hall in which plays are 
 accustomed to be performed by the boys for the sake of practice) . 
 An upstart of a youth was suborned to present the indictment, 
 i which had been drawn up by some one else and had been 
 memorized. The headings of the indictment were : — first, Chris- 
 tophe de Longueil, once in his boyhood, when, for the sake of 
 testing his strength, he was praising the country where he was 
 then living, had dared to compare France favorably with Italy; 
 second, he had praised the barbarians, Erasmus and Bude ; third, 
 incited and delegated by them he had come into Italy to carry 
 back to the barbarians all the best books so that thus they might 
 vie with the Italians for the chief place of learning; and finally, 
 on the ground that he was an uncivilized man and of obscure 
 family he did not seem worthy of so great an honor as to be 
 called a Roman. Here is a theme on which you may test the 
 powers of Ciceronian eloquence. De Longueil treated with ut- 
 most seriousness this plainly ridiculous charge, manifesting a 
 truly wonderful pomp of words, a great show of talent, the 
 greatest vehemence, at times much urbanity, using the age of 
 Cicero just as the author of "The Battle of Frogs and Mice" 
 made use, in sport, of the Homeric Iliad, fitting to frogs and 
 mice and equally ridiculous things the splendid words and deeds 
 of gods, goddesses, and heroes. He exaggerated the danger of 
 his position, picturing armed cohorts and bands of gladiators 
 by whom the authority of the Senate and the free action of the 
 law had been hindered. He set before them in fancy early Rome, 
 the Queen of the World, and Romulus with his Quirites as her 
 guard and protector; then the Common People and the ruling 
 Senate, the people divided into classes and tribes, the Praetorian 
 8 
 
114 Ciceronianus 
 
 right, the veto of the Tribunes ; he pictured provinces, colonies, 
 towns, allies of the Seven-hilled Cit}' ; he quoted a decree of the 
 Senate ; he cited laws : — I marvel that he did not remember the 
 water-clocks, nine of which I think are allowed to the defendant 
 Xext tlie emotions were called into play; the old statesmen of 
 the Roman Republic were appealed to and summoned forth from 
 their tombs, \\hat was not done ? The proceeding was exceed- 
 ingly humorous. 
 
 I, for my part, confess it would be a good thing if our 
 young men were trained thus in the schools of declamation, 
 in spite of the fact that Ouintilian teaches that the prac- 
 tice of declamation should approach as nearty as possible to the 
 real pleading — no doubt because some like to seek themes from 
 the stories of poets which are neither real nor probable; and 
 because, though the preparatory exercises bear valuable fruit 
 even when the subject is taken from history and the words and 
 thoughts are made to suit the conditions of other times, yet the 
 youth will be better instructed to plead a real case if he handles 
 an investigation involved in the circimistances of the present 
 day. For example, these would be more useful subjects : whether 
 it would profit tlie state for princes to give their daughters and 
 sisters in marriage to distant regions ; whether it would be to the 
 advantage of Christian pietj' for the leading churchmen to be 
 burdened witii secular rule: whether a joung man can gain a 
 better education by wide reading than by traveling through dis- 
 tant lands; or whether it is profitable for a boy, elected to rule 
 by choice of the people or b}' birth, to spend much time on letters 
 and the liberal arts. 
 
 Since De Longueil's theme was not taken from histon,-. how 
 could it be made consistent with its time by fictitious assump- 
 tion? and since, on the other hand, it was not of such a 
 kind that it could be consistent ^^"ith its owm time and charac- 
 ters, how could he imitate Cicero exactiy, who, when the arms 
 of Antony had been defeated, la3ring aside the fear of death, 
 spoke freely before the Senate and the Roman People? The dis- 
 tinguished youth, in spite of these difficulties, conducted the case 
 with so much zeal and skill that I know of no one today even 
 among the Italians, with due respect to all I say it, who could 
 do as well. Thus you see I have no desire to detract from the 
 glory of De Longueil, for such genius I should have to admire 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 115 
 
 even if found in an enemy. What I have said has only this in 
 view that 1 may keep youthful students from superstitiously 
 torturing themselves by striving after the likeness of Cicero to 
 such an extent that they are turned away from more useful and 
 necessary studies by the effort. You have the case before you, 
 Nosoponus, the orations are extant to refute me if I have mis- 
 represented anything. Now I should like to have you explain to 
 me whether it is worth while for brilliant minds to spend so much 
 time and trouble on these displays, to say nothing of killing them- 
 selves by such anxieties. How much more use De Longueil 
 would have been to the Christian religion, to letters, and to his 
 fatherland, if the nights he spent on these ridiculous indictments 
 he had spent on serious subjects ! 
 
 No. — Indeed, I am sorry for De Longueil and I have practically 
 nothing to answer. 
 
 Bu. — Besides, he bears witness that he has written five ora- 
 tions in praise of Rome. O labor beautifully spent! How much 
 better if he had sought to kindle that state and those men who 
 professed belles-lettres there to the adoration of Christ and the 
 love of piety by a few carefully wrought orations ! You under- 
 stand, Nosoponus, what I mean. And, pray tell me for whom 
 so much labor was spent. For the Senate ? The Senate, if there 
 is any at Rome, does not know Latin. For the people? So far 
 are they from being captivated by Ciceronian language that they 
 speak a barbarian tongue. So farewell to these ostentatious dis- 
 plays ! 
 
 He enters into a serious and ■ weighty case against Martin 
 Luther. In this can he be a Ciceronian when he is discussing 
 things of which Cicero knew absolutely nothing! He cannot, 
 for th€ oration cannot be perfectly Ciceronian which does not 
 accord with the age, the characters, and the circumst?inces. He 
 could assail in a fashion truly Ciceronian, but when it comes to 
 the enumeration of the charges Cicero's phraseology would be 
 rather obscure and hardly understood by those who held the 
 tenets of Luther. Here the case requires the utmost clearness 
 of expression, if he wishes to be a Ciceronian. Furthermore, from 
 the way he sets forth the facts, it would not be diiBcult to guess 
 what he would have been in refuting the doctrines of his adver- 
 sary and in establishing his own. He carefully avoids the words 
 of our religion, never using the word, Mes (faith), but substitu- 
 
1 1 6 Cic ero nianus 
 
 ting in its place, persuasio (conviction), and many others which 
 we have spoken of before. Yet time and again he uses the name 
 of Christian, inadvertently, I presume, for this word never oc- 
 curred in the books of Cicero. Withal, there was much in the 
 speech very praiseworthy ; and the greatest fault was that he was 
 so anxious to be a Ciceronian that he preferred to fit his language 
 to Cicero rather than to the case. 
 
 No. — ^And yet it is wonderful how much at the present time 
 some Italians praise these orations. 
 
 Bu. — I confess that they praise them, but they read others. 
 How many more thumb the pages of the popular trifles of the 
 ^Dutch orator which are called the Colloquia than the writings 
 of De Long^eil however carefully wrought, however finished, 
 however Ciceronian, or to put it in Greek better, KeKporrjfi^m I' 
 What is the reason? Why, I say, unless because in the latter) 
 the subject itself holds and attracts the reader, no matter in 
 what style it is handled ; while over the former the reader sleeps 
 and snores because they are lifeless and artificial? Usefulness 
 recommends even mediocre eloquence. That which merely 
 furnishes amusement cannot continue to please, especially if 
 those who are reading have the end in view not only to 
 speak with greater polish but to live better. In fine, those who 
 inflamed this youth to the striving after Ciceronianism did not 
 deserve the highest reward either from him or from the literary 
 world. But of De Longueil perchance too much. 
 
 No. — ^You have hurried past Jacob Sadolet and Pietro Bembo 
 with reason, I suppose. 
 
 Bu. — Yes, for I was not willing to mix excellent men and rare 
 examples of their time with the mob. None of Pietro Bembo's 
 work is extant that I know of except some letters in which I 
 admire the very clear, sane, and I may say Attic style of speaking, 
 as well as the honesty, gentleness, and singular purity of genius, 
 reflected in the language as in a mirror. In nothing do I think 
 De Longueil more fortunate or more adorned than in the friend- 
 ship of such men. Jacob Sadolet in almost all respects equals 
 Bembo ; but he does not strive so much, in that most elegant com- 
 mentary which he published on the fiftieth psalm, to be con- 
 sidered a Ciceronian that he fails to preserve the charm of his 
 
 1 Erasmus himself 
 
 2 Applauded. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 117 
 
 character, for he was Bishop of Carpentras and had full regard 
 for his theme. And he used some ecclesiastical words in his letters 
 too. What then? Did he not speak in Ciceronian style? No, 
 or rather yes ; for he spoke as Cicero would probably have spoken 
 of the same things if he had lived at that time, — ^that is, of 
 Christian themes in Christian language. Ciceronians of this kind 
 I can endure, who, gifted with the highest genius, finished with 
 every kind of training, of singular judgment and wisdom, cannot 
 but use the best language whether they have as examples Cicero 
 alone, or a few superior men, or all the scholars. 
 
 No. — The scholars think very well of Battista Casellius. 
 
 Bu. — The oration De Lege Agraria which was published a little 
 while before his death shows that he strove for the formal part 
 of the Ciceronian style with all his might, and that in this he 
 succeeded very well for there was a very high degree of illus- 
 tration, brilliance of language, and persuasion. For the rest, his 
 deficiency is great if you compare him with Cicero. 
 
 No. — Surely all unanimously praise Pontano. The votes of 
 scholars grant to him the palm of Ciceronian style. 
 
 Bu. — I am not so stupid nor so envious as not to confess 
 that Pontano was of the first rank in many excellent gifts of 
 genius. And he captivates me too with the quiet flow of his 
 style; he charms my ear by a lovely tinkling of sweet sounding 
 words ; and he overpowers me with a kind of splendor and ma- 
 jestic dignity of style. 
 
 No. — ^What hinders then your acknowledging him to be a 
 Ciceronian ? 
 
 Bu. — ^What I have said does not make him a Ciceronian. I 
 have read a few of his works. He handles secular subjects and 
 what may be called commonplaces, such as fortitude, obedience, 
 excellence, which shine most easily and of themselves furnish an 
 abundance of maxims, in a way that you could scarcely tell 
 whether he were a Christian or not. Thus he manages his pen 
 in the pamphlet De Principe. I cannot remember what else I 
 have read of his except some dialogues modelled after Lucian. 
 But I do not recognize in him a Ciceronian unless he is a Cicer- 
 onian who handles modern life with Ciceronian felicity. In 
 epigrams he would have won more praise if he had shunned ob- 
 scenity, which is not entirely lacking in his Dialogi either. In 
 Meteora and Urania he found material that easily became bril- 
 
u8 Ciceronianus 
 
 liant, and handled a happy theme in a happy way, using at times 
 the vocabulary of the Christians. In his other works I find at 
 times propriety and fitness and that pungency which lingers in 
 the mind after one of Cicero's works is laid aside. Certainly, ac- 
 cording to that law which you have laid down to us, he will 
 not be a Ciceronian in whose writings I could show six hundred 
 words not in Cicero. Finally, think how little Pontano is read, 
 though he is one of the most prominent writers. 
 
 No. — Accius Syncerus, who succeeded Pontano, described the 
 birth of the Virgin Mother in a wonderfully clever poem which 
 was applauded beyond measure in the theater at Rome. 
 
 Bu. — The breviaries (for so they call them today) of Leo and 
 Clement testify abundantly to this. Then a preface was added of 
 Cardinal Aegedius, not to mention others, and it had reason to 
 be pleasing. Indeed I read both books with delight. He wrote 
 eclogues on fishing too. Who would not admire such talent in 
 a noble youth? He must be placed before Pontano because he 
 was not ashamed to write on a sacred theme and because he 
 treated it neither in a sleepy nor in a disagreeable fashion, but 
 he would have deserved more praise if he had treated his sacred 
 subject somewhat more reverently. Indeed Battista Mantuano 
 could excel him. ^What was the use of his invoking so many 
 times in a sacred poem the Muses and Phoebus? of his paint- 
 ing the Virgin intent upon the verses of the Muses? of intro- 
 ducing Proteus foretelling Christ? and peopling the whole world 
 with nymphs, hamadryads, and neriads? How harsh this verse 
 sounds to Christian ears which, if I mistake not, is spoken to the 
 Virgin Mary: Tuque adeo spes Hda hominum, spes HdaDeorum!^ 
 Of course Deorum for the sake of the meter was put in place of 
 Divorum. Among so many virtttes his frequent elisions count for 
 little, but they mar the smoothness. To be brief: if you should 
 cite this poem as a typical work of a youth studying to write 
 poetry, I should think it good; but if as a poem written by a 
 serious man on the subject of piety, I should far prefer the single 
 hymn of Prudentius, De Natali Jesu, to the three little volumes of 
 Accius Syncerus, — so far does this poem fail to suffice for the 
 overthrowing of Goliath as he threatens the church with a sling, 
 or for soothing Saul in his madness with the harp as the preface 
 declares him to do. And I do not know which is more blame- 
 
 1 And you therefore the sure hope of gods and men . 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 119 
 
 worth}- for a Christian to handle secular themes in secular lan- 
 guage, pretending that he is not a Christian, or in pagan tongue ; 
 for the mysteries of Christ ought to be treated in both a scholarly 
 way and reverently. It is not enough to arouse in the reader 
 little temporary feelings of dehght ; emotions worthy of the Lord 
 must be aroused. And you cannot do this unless you have the 
 subject you are handling thoroughly mastered: for you will not 
 inflame if you yourself are cold; you will not set the reader's 
 mind on fire with the love of celestial things, if you yourself are 
 but lukewarm. If you have at hand either spontaneously or at the 
 cost of no great labor fine phrases and figures to attract the fas- 
 tidious reader and cause him to linger, I think they ought not 
 to be dd^ised, provided those things which are of chief impor- 
 tance have the first place. Would it be possible for a religious 
 theme to be distasteful to us because it has been clothed in 
 religious language? How can you use religious language if you 
 never take your eyes from ^'ergil, Horace, and Ovid? — ^unless, 
 perchance, you approve of those who have described the life of 
 Christ by gathering fragments of Homeric and Vergilian verses 
 from everynvhere and sewing them into a patchwork. Surely 
 a painstaking kind of writing, — ^but have they ever brought tears 
 to the eyes of any? Whom have they moved to pious living? 
 Whom have they recalled from an impure life? And yet not 
 so different is the attempt of those who clothe Christian argu- 
 ment in words, phrases, figures, and rhythms gathered from 
 Cicero. To return, what reward of praise does this rhapsodist 
 gain ? This, to be sure, that he has busied himself carefully with 
 Homer and Vergil. What reward of Ciceronianism ? That he is 
 applauded only by those who are busied in the same and recog- 
 nize what has been gathered and whence. This sort of thing 
 certainly furnishes a kind of pleasure, I confess, but to very 
 few and of such a kind that it is easily turned into satiety, and 
 in the end it is nothing more than pleasure. That power of 
 arousing the emotions, without which, in the estimation of 
 Ouintilian, there can be no eloquence worthy of admiration, is 
 absolutely lacking. Notwithstanding, we think we are Vergils 
 and Ciceros. Tell me, Nosoponus, if one should break into parts 
 the story of Gan)miede elegantly constructed in mosaic and with 
 these same little blocks, by arranging them differently, should 
 attempt to represent Gabriel bearing the divine message to the 
 
I20 Ciceronianus 
 
 Nazarene virgin, would he not produce a rude and disappointing 
 work, out of excellent blocks *to be sure, but not fitted to the 
 subject? 
 
 No. — Licence granted by the ancients makes excuse for j)oets. 
 
 Bu. — Listen to what Horace says about this : 
 
 ^'Sed non ut placidis coeant inmitia, non ut 
 Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni. 
 
 It is more inappropriate, 1 think, to join the Muses and Apollo 
 and the rest of the gods of poetry with the mysteries of the 
 Christian religion than to unite snakes with birds and lambs with 
 tigers, especially if in a serious piece of work. And I think that 
 if any thing is sprinkled in by way of a joke from the stories of 
 the ancients, it ought to be endured rather than approved of; 
 for it behooves every speech of Christians to be centered in Christ 
 whereby it will become persuasive, eloquent, and learned. Even 
 boys may practice on serious themes. Who would allow those 
 pagan exercises when practicing for real, serious, and what is 
 still more important, religious subjects? 
 
 No. — ^What then is your advice? That I reject Cicero? 
 
 Bu. — No. He should always be in the bosom of the youth who 
 js a candidate for eloquence, but that over-nicety and fastidious- 
 ness which causes one to reject a learned and elegant piece of 
 work and to consider it not worth reading simply because it has 
 not been wrought in imitation of Cicero must be absolutely re- 
 jected. In the first place, Ciceronian style does not always accord 
 with one's bent of mind, in which case the effort will turn out 
 badly; in the second place, if one has not the natural ability to 
 attain an inimitable felicity of speaking, what is more stupid 
 than to agonize oneself over the impossible ? Add to this that the 
 Ciceronian style does not fit all subjects nor all characters, and, 
 if it did, it is better sometimes to underdo than to overdo. If 
 his eloquence had cost Cicero as much as it costs the Ciceronians 
 he would have left off some of the ornaments from his orations, 
 I venture to say. That is overdone which is bought at so great 
 a sacrifice of time, health, and even at the price of life itself. 
 That is overdone for the sake of which we neglect the branches 
 
 1 But 'twill not screen the \innatural and absurd, 
 Union of lamb with tiger, snake with bird. Ars Poetica 12, 13. — Conington. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 121 
 
 of knowledge more necessary to know. And lastly, that is over- 
 done which is bought at the expense of piety. If eloquence is 
 learned to delight the idle, what profits it to learn by heart the 
 lilies of our role by so many vigils? On the contrary, if it 
 is learned that we may persuade people of those things that are 
 honorable, Phocion, the Athenian, spoke more effectively than 
 Demosthenes, Cato of Utica than Cicero. Again, if eloquence is 
 acquired that our books may wear out with much reading, and if 
 we could attain without effort the likeness of Ciceronian style, 
 yet we ought to strive for variety because it would be healing to 
 the sick stomach of the reader. Variety has such efficacy in hu- 
 man affairs that it is not always expedient to follow even the 
 best. Ever true is the Grecian proverb, /iCTa/SoA.^ iravriov yXvKv-^ 
 Homer and Horace are to be praised for nothing more than 
 for the fact that their wonderful variety of subject and figure 
 never allows the reader to grow weary. Besides, nature has 
 fashioned us in such way, by granting us each his own genius, 
 that you will scarcely find two who can do the same thing 
 or who love the same. And again, since nothing is more 
 delicate and fastidious than the human stomach and since 
 there is such a volume to be devoured by us in order to 
 gain learning, who could hold out in the continual reading if 
 all had the same style and diction? Therefore, it is better in 
 books as it is in banquets that some parts be inferior than that 
 all be alike. Another illustration : what kind of a host would he be 
 who would serve many guests of varying taste with the same food 
 seasoned all alike, even if he were serving Apician delicacies? 
 The result is now, since one is captivated by one kind of speak- 
 ing and another by another, that everything is read. Nature too 
 who intended speech to be a mirror of the mind rebels against 
 that effort. To carry the figure further, there are as many kinds 
 of minds as there are forms of voices and the mirror will be 
 straightway deceptive unless it give back the real image of 
 the mind, which is the very thing that delights the reader es- 
 pecially — to discover from the language the feelings, the charac- 
 teristics, the judgment, and the ability of the writer as well as 
 if one had known him for years. Out of this has grown the 
 great variety of preference for books, according as the writer's 
 genius is kindred or alien, as it wins or repels the reader; just 
 
 'Change in all things is sweet. Aristotle, Rhet. i. ii, 20. 
 
122 Ciceronianus 
 
 as in form and feature different types delight different men. Let 
 me tell what happened to me. As a youth I was madly in love 
 with all the poets. But as soon as I became more familiar with 
 Horace, all others, in comparison to him, began to offend. What 
 do you think was the reason for this, if not that a kind_of secret 
 affinity of minds was recognized in those mute letters? This 
 genuine, native quality does not breathe out in the language of 
 those who express nothing but Cicero. What about the fact that 
 honorable men though born with only ordinary beauty are never 
 willing for a portrait to misrepresent them by flattery, and insist 
 upon being painted in exactly the form that nature has given 
 them, declaring that it is disgraceful to put a false face upon 
 any one and that a deceptive mirror or a flattering picture is a 
 ridiculous thing? The deception would be more disgraceful if 
 I, Bulephorus, should wish to be thought Nosoponus or any one 
 else. Are there not some dishonest men who are rightly ridiculed 
 by the scholars because they reject, as it were, and throw out 
 of their libraries learned and eloquent authors worthy of im- 
 mortality, simply because they preferred to express themselves 
 rather than Cicero, feeling that it would be a kind of imj>osture 
 to cast before the eyes of men an illusion of another's beauty 
 instead of their true selves? I doubt whether, if our Divine 
 Maker were willing, we could find many who would wish to ex- 
 change the whole type of their bodies with others, and still fewer 
 I suppose there would be who would be inclined to exchange 
 their minds ; because, in the first place, no one would be willing 
 to be different from what he is and, in the second place, each one 
 by Providence has been attuned by his own gifts in such a way 
 that even if he should have some faults he can counterbalance 
 them by virtues. Each mind has an individuality of its own 
 reflecting in speech as in a mirror and to fashion it in a different 
 shape is nothing else than going out in masquerade. 
 
 No. — Be careful, lest, as the saying is, your language over- 
 leap the bounds, for it seems to me that you have reached the 
 point where you condemn all imitation, overlooking the fact that 
 the rhetorical schools depend very largely upon rules, imitation, 
 and practice, unless perchance you believe that those who imitate 
 Cicero take upon themselves the shape of another while those 
 who imitate others keep their own. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 123 
 
 Bu. — I favor imitation but imitation that aids rather than 
 hinders nature ; that corrects rather than destroys nature's gifts. 
 I approve of the imitation of a model agreeing with your genius 
 or at least not antagonistic, for otherwise you would be fighting 
 the battle of the gods and giants. Further, I do not approve of 
 the imitation of one copy from whose lines you would not dare 
 to depart, but that which culls from all authors, and especially 
 the most famous, what in each excels and accords with your own 
 genius, — not just adding to your speech all the beautiful things 
 that you find, but digesting them and making them your own, so 
 that they may seem to have been born from your mind and not 
 borrowed from others, and may breathe forth the vigor and 
 strength of your nature, causing those who read to recognize, 
 instead of a mosaic drawn from Cicero, an offspring of your own 
 brain as they say Minerva was of the brain of Jupiter, reflecting 
 the living image of the parent, so that your speech may not seem 
 a patchwork, but a river flowing forth from the fount of your 
 heart. 
 
 But let your first and chief care be to know the subject which 
 you undertake to present. This will furnish you wealth of 
 speech and true, natural emotions. Your language will live, 
 breathe, persuade, convince, and fully express your self. 
 
 Nor do I maintain that every thing gained from imitation is 
 spurious. There is some care of the person which is not un- 
 becoming to a man and which sets off native beauty to advantage, 
 — bathing, for example, an office which is of prime importance to 
 good health but which at the same time contributes to beauty of 
 face. Now if you should wish to shape your face after the 
 type of one who is very unlike you, you would accomplish nothing ; 
 but if you see that the beauty of some one not so very unlike 
 yourself is lessened by grinning, frowning, wrinkling the fore- 
 head, sneering, pouting, winking, and by other like actions, you 
 can, by avoiding these things, make your beauty greater and yet 
 not take on the face of another but mould your own. Likewise 
 if you see that long and shaggy hair is not becoming to another, 
 you may correct yours ; if you see that a merry face, a truthful 
 eye, and a countenance so ordered to uprightness that it shows 
 nothing grim or insolent, trivial or unseemly add very much to 
 another's charm, you will be justified in fashioning your face 
 in imitation, since it is natural for the mind to respond to the 
 
124 Ciceronianus 
 
 face. Moreover inasmuch as the charm of beauty varies, do 
 not make up your mind that that beauty is inferior which is 
 different from the beauty which you admire, for, as we have 
 said, those who are most unlike may yet be equal. And there 
 is no reason why one very unlike Cicero may not be even 
 greater than one copying his form more perfectly. Come then, 
 let us lay aside our preferences and vote from judgment rather 
 than feeling. If your Goddess of Persuasion should give you 
 the choice of being Quintilian or Cornificius instead of Nosoponus 
 which would you choose? 
 
 No. — For my part, I should prefer to be Quintilian. 
 
 Bu. — But yet the other is much more like Cicero. Which 
 would you prefer to be, Sallust or Quintus Curtius? 
 
 No.' — I should prefer Sallust. 
 
 Bu. — But Quintus Curtius is more like Cicero. Would you 
 prefer to be Leonardo Aretino or Lorenzo Valla? 
 
 No. — I should prefer Valla. 
 
 Bu. — Yet Leonardo is more like Cicero. Would you prefer 
 to be Hermolao Barbaro or Christoforo Landino ? 
 
 No. — Barbaro. 
 
 Bu. — ^The other is more like Cicero. Would you prefer to be 
 Politian or Paolo Cortesi? 
 
 No. — Politian. 
 
 Bu. — But the other demands that he be called Ciceroniaa 
 Well, would you prefer to be TertuUiaUj leaving out of considera- 
 tion his heresy, or Bede? 
 
 No. — Tertullian. 
 
 Bu. — But Bede has more the phraseology of Cicero. Would 
 you prefer to be St. Jerome or Lactantius? 
 
 No. — St. Jerome. 
 
 Bu. — Yes, but the other, how great an ape of Cicero is he! 
 You see now that he who is more like Cicero does not necessarily 
 speak better, and that he who is more unlike does not necessarily 
 speak worse. In fine, just as it is possible for many people to 
 be Atticists and yet be very different, so there is no reason why 
 many may not be called Ciceronians who are equal though unlike 
 in power of speaking. Who can abide those sciolists who reject 
 with a scowl whatever does not show the lineaments of Cicer- 
 onian style which they estimate only by petty words, figures, and 
 rhythms ! He makes but a feeble effort toward Ciceronian style 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 125 
 
 who approaches the task without being previously trained by the 
 reading of many authors, by the knowledge of many branches of 
 study, and by acquaintance with a wide range of subjects, not to 
 repeat what has been said about natural ability and practical 
 judgment. I might overlook this foolish little conceit in youth, 
 I might stand it in scholars who counterbalance the fault by many 
 great virtues; but who could endure old men whose only ambi- \ 
 tion is to be like Cicero, who erase from their list of authors ; 
 men more learned and more eloquent than themselves because | 
 these men dare to vary a little from the lines of Cicero, though I 
 they themselves as a rule are so far from being Ciceronians that/ 
 their speech is even ungrammatical at times? I will not give 
 the names of some I am acquainted with who may perchance 
 hope to become famous thus. 
 
 I will speak next of Bartolommeo Scala who thinks Hermolao 
 Barbaro and Politian but indifferent Ciceronians, yet deems him- 
 self a true one, however much he tries to conceal it. I, for my 
 part, prefer the dreams of Politian to sober Scala's laborious 
 writings. 
 
 Paolo Cortesi acknowledges this ambition but — good heavens! 
 how much farther is his letter from the image of Cicero 
 than the one of Politian which it answers! And in noth- 
 ing else does Cortesi seem more unlike Cicero than in 
 missing the point in almost the whole argument. He argues 
 the case just as if Politian were keeping him from imitating 
 Cicero and as if he were unwilling that a writer should set 
 before himself a model of any kind ; for he reproaches those who, 
 trained by no reading of good authors, no learning, no practice, 
 strive only to gain the form of Cicero and calls them for this 
 reason the apes of Cicero. He reproaches those who borrow 
 words in little bits from Cicero, who walk in others' tracks and 
 create nothing, who do nothing but imitate and imitate only the 
 mere words. He says that he cannot bear those who, though 
 they are anything but Ciceronians, nevertheless laud themselves 
 under the title and do not hesitate to express their opinion of the 
 best writers. Then he advises his friend, after he has by long 
 continued reading dissected, learned by heart, and digested Cicero 
 first and many great writers afterward, to prepare as at any time 
 to write, putting aside that peevish and anxious care to imitate 
 only Cicero, because that anxiety would cause him to attain less 
 
126 Ciceronianus 
 
 perfectly the very thing he is striving for. Is this keeping one 
 from imitating Cicero? Does it teach that no one at all is to 
 be imitated ? Does he who is so crammed with reading that the 
 best from all comes to him for use when writing imitate no one, 
 even though granting that he is not a slave to any, that he con- 
 sults his own feelings and takes into consideration the nature 
 of his subject? Cortesi declares that the apes of Cicero do not 
 please him, saying : "I wish, my dear Politian, to resemble Cicero 
 not as an ape resembles a man but as a son resembles his parent," 
 making the same remark that Politian had made. Continuing 
 this speech at length he finally admits, as if forgetting himself, 
 that he would rather be an ape of Cicero than a son of others. 
 If this word, others, includes Sallust, Livy, Quintilian, Seneca, 
 who would not prefer to be like them as a son is like a parent 
 rather than to be like Cicero in the way that an ape is like a 
 man? Next he makes many charges against those who gorge 
 themselves with wide reading and do not digest what they read. 
 Their speech comes out rough, uncouth, and harsh, he says. But 
 what has this to do with Politian's letter? If he agrees with 
 him why does he answer as if he disagrees? If he disagrees, 
 why does he not disprove what Politian says? For it is par- 
 ticularly Ciceronian to discern the subject of dispute, the points 
 of vantage for the adversary and the main point at issue, and to 
 say nothing outside the limits of the question. You see then that 
 Cortesi with much pains worked out an epistle which was more 
 lengthy than Ciceronian, which elicited no answer from Politian 
 because of its irrelevancy. 
 
 But Politian, who was not styled a Ciceronian, how much 
 better, albeit in a shorter letter, he expressed Cicero, not only 
 by the charm of his aphorisms but also by apt, elegant, and 
 telling language ! — though I remember there is a story among 
 the scholars of Italy that he answered for some reason or other 
 more curtly than the man deserved. And believe me these things 
 are not said in disparagement of Cortesi, for it is not a mark 
 of disrespect for any one to be rated lower than the inimitable 
 Politian; but they are said to make clear to young men what 
 it is to be a true Ciceronian. 
 
 Hyp. — You lead us by such a round-about way, Bulephorus, 
 that I am almost Hyponosus instead of Hypologus. Now tell 
 us simply what you think of Cicero and of imitating him. 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 127 
 
 No. — This very thing I too should like very much; for your 
 talk has brought me to the point where I have decided to take 
 your advice. 
 
 Bu. — I think nothing remains but to summarize what in a 
 scattered fashion has thus far been discussed. 
 
 No. — What kind of a man does Cicero seem to you to be ? 
 
 Bu. — A most excellent orator, and, even though a pagan, a 
 good man, who I think if he had known the Christian religion 
 would have been reckoned among those who now are honored as 
 saints on account of their innocent and pious living. Skill and 
 practice, I confess, aided him very much; but he owed far the 
 greatest part of his eloquence to natural ability, which no one 
 can gain for himself. Nor do I think that any of the other 
 Latin writers ought to be more cherished by boys and young 
 men who are being trained to win praise in the field of eloquence. 
 
 Yet I would that the reading of the Latin poets at least came 
 before the study of oratory, for poetry is more in harmony with 
 early youth. Nor would I have any one called to the careful 
 imitation of Cicero until the precepts of the art of rhetoric had 
 been learned. After this I would have a teacher of the art of 
 oratory at hand, just as painters are wont to point out to their 
 pupils when looking at some great picture what has been done 
 in accordance with the principles of art and what in violation of 
 these principles. 
 
 I would have Cicero form the first and foremost part of 
 the curriculum but not the only part, and not simply for the 
 purpose of being followed but for being imitated rather 
 and emulated; for he who follows walks in the steps of another 
 and becomes a slave to rules. True indeed is the saying that he 
 cannot walk well who always puts his foot in the track of another, 
 nor swim well who does not dare to throw away the cork. To 
 amplify — an imitator does not desire to say the same things so 
 much as he does to say similar things, nay sometimes not even 
 similar but even equal; an emulator strives even to speak better 
 if he can, and no one was ever so finished an artist that you 
 could not find in his work something which could be done better. 
 But I should not want this imitation to be sought too anxiously 
 and too religiously; for this very thing hinders us from accom- 
 plishing our desire. 
 
128 Ciceronianus 
 
 Nor do I think that Cicero should be adored to the ex- 
 clusion of all others. You should first read the most noted 
 authors and cull from them what is best; for it is not neces- 
 sary that you should imitate any one entirely. Nor do I think 
 that those ought to be scorned who do not take great delight 
 in nicety of language but furnish abundance of material for 
 thought, such as Aristotle, Theophrastus, Pliny. Further I 
 should not like any one to be so devoted to the imitation of Cicero 
 that he would depart from the bent of his own genius and follow 
 at the cost of his health and life what he could never attain be- 
 cause of the limitations of his natural ability; or what, if he 
 could attain, would be at so great a cost. I should not wish one 
 to occupy his time exclusively with Cicero, nor do I think that 
 Ciceronian diction should be aimed at to such a degree that the 
 liberal arts and especially the necessary _ones are neglected. You 
 must avoid those as you would a pest who cry out that it is 
 wrong to use any word that is not found in the books of Cicero. 
 For now that the Latin speech has ceased to be in control, what- 
 ever words are discovered in reputable writers, let us use on our 
 own authority whenever there is need, and if they seem rather 
 harsh and obsolete, because they are rarely used, let us bring 
 them forth and by frequent and timely use let us soften them; 
 for what ground of criticism, pray, can there be if we, aware 
 that the ancients borrowed words of the Greeks whenever Latin 
 words were lacking or were considered inadequate, modify what 
 we find in approved authors when the occasion demands? Not 
 less zealously ought you to avoid those who declare that whatever 
 has not been fashioned in imitation of Cicero's words, phrases, 
 and rhythms must be rejected as entirely unworthy of reading, 
 notwithstanding it may have other virtues if not similar at least 
 equal to Cicero's. Let us not have that over fastidious nicety, 
 or rather let us show seriously in the reading of authors what 
 Ovid jestingly relates as happening to him in his love affairs: — A 
 tall girl pleased him because she seemed half divme, a short one 
 because of her active motion ; youth recommended itself to him 
 through its inherent charm, maturity by its experience of the 
 world; an ignorant girl delighted him with her simplicity, an 
 educated one with her intellect ; a blond with her wealth of color, 
 a brunette with some hidden charm or other. If we gather as 
 freely from the individual writers what they have which is 
 
A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking 129 
 
 worthy of approval, we shall spurn none but shall gain some- 
 thing from all to give spice to our speech. 
 
 But provision must be made, first pi all, that youth, in 
 the simple and untutored time of life, be not deceived by 
 the illusion of a Ciceronian name and become pa'gan instead 
 of Ciceronian. For we see pests of this kind, not yet abso- 
 lutely uprooted, from time to time sprouting up again under 
 the guise of old heresies, of Judaism, of paganism. Many 
 years ago, factions of Platonists and Peripatetics began to 
 arise thus among the Italians. Let these names, as sources of 
 discord, be abandoned ; let us rather inculcate doctrines which in 
 the pursuit of learning, in religion, and in every phase of life will 
 win and increase our mutual good-will. That belief in sacred 
 things which is truly worthy of a Christian must first be gained. 
 When this is accomplished, nothing will seem more ornamental 
 than the Christian religion, nothing more persuasive than the 
 name of Jesus Christ, nothing more charming than the words 
 by means of which the great men of the Church show forth her 
 mysteries. Nor will the speech of any one seem charming which 
 is not in accord with his character and not accommodated to the 
 subject in hand; that will seem unnatural too which treats of a 
 sacred theme in secular language and which contaminates a 
 Christian theme with pagan baubles. But if some indulgence 
 here is granted to youth, let not more advanced age assume for 
 itself the same right. He who is so much of a Ciceronian that 
 he is not quite a Christian is not even a Ciceronian because he 
 does not speak fittingly, does not know his subject thoroughly, 
 does not feel deeply those things of which he speaks ; lastly he 
 does not present his religious beliefs with the same adornment 
 with which Cicero presented the philosophy of his times. The 
 liberal arts, philosophy, and oratory are learned to the end that 
 we may know Christ, that we may celebrate the glory of Christ. 
 
 This is the whole scope of learning and eloquence. And we must 
 learn this, viz., that we may imitate what is the essential in Cicero 
 which does not lie in words or in the surface of speech but in 
 facts and ideas, in power of mind and judgment. For what 
 advantage is it if the son reproduce the parent in lines of face 
 when he is unHke him in mind and character? To conclude, if 
 it is not our good fortune to be called Ciceronians by the vote of 
 the ultra Ciceronians we must bear it patiently for the great men 
 
130 Ciceronianus 
 
 whom we have enumerated above suffered the same fate. It is 
 fooHsh to strive after that which we cannot attain. It is effemi- 
 nate to torture ourselves pitiably for what so many illustrious 
 writers have borne tranquilly ; it is stupid to wish to speak other- 
 wise than the subject demands; it is mad to buy at the price of 
 such vigils what will prgbably never be of any use. A physician 
 with some such remedy as this cured me, and if you are not too 
 loth to take it, I hope it will cause this fever to leave you, Noso- 
 ponus, and you, Hypologus. 
 
 riyp. — I surely have long since been cured of the disease. 
 
 No. — And I too, except that I still feel some remnants of that 
 long familiar illness. 
 
 Bu. — They will gradually vanish, but if there be any need we 
 will summon again the physician. Reason.