the scrupulous accuracy with which their respective characters are distinguished and preserved throughout, and the air of calm dignity which pervades each separate piece. At the same time, we must confess, that there is throughout a want of that life and reality which lends such a charm to the dialogues of Plato. We feel that most of the colloquies reported by the Athenian might actually have been held; but there is a stiffness and formality about the actors of Cicero, and a tendency to lecture rather than to converse, which materially injures the dramatic effect, and in fact in some degree neutralizes the benefit to be derived from this method of imparting knowledge. He has also rather abused the opportunities presented for excursions into the attractive regions which lie out of the direct path, and so much space is sometimes occupied by enthusiastic declamations, that the main subject is for a time thrown out of sight and forgotten.
The speculative opinions entertained by Cicero himself are of little importance, except as a mere matter of curiosity, and cannot be ascertained with certainty. In all controversies the chief arguments of the contending parties are drawn out with the strictest impartiality, marshalled in strong relief over against each other, and the decision then left to the reader. The habit of stating and comparing a multitude of conflicting theories, each of which could number a long array of great names among its supporters, would naturally confirm that disposition to deny the certainty of human knowledge which must have been imbibed in early life by the pupil of Philo of Larissa; while the multitude of beautiful and profound reflections scattered over the writings of the Greek sages would lead an unbiassed mind, honest in its search after truth, to select what was best in each without binding himself exclusively to one.
(Those who desire to follow out this subject may consult Brucker, Historia Critica Philosophiae, vol. ii. pp. 1-70; Gaultier de Sibert, Examen de la Philosophie de Ciceron, in the Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vols. xlii. and xliii.; Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iv. pp. 76-168; G. Waldin, De Philosoph. Cic. Platonica, Jena, 1753; J. G. Zierlein, De Philosoph. Cic. Hal. 1770; J. C. Brieglieb, Progr. de Philosoph. Cic. Cob. 1784; M. Fremling, Philosoph. Cic. Lund. 1795; H. C. F. Hulsemann, De Indole Philosoph. Cic. Luneb. 1799; D. F. Gedicke, Historia Philosoph. antiquae ex Cic. Scriptis, Berol. 1815; J. A. C. Van Heusde, M. Tull. Cic. Φιλοπλάτων, Traj. ad Rhen. 1836; R. Kühner, M. Tull. Cic. in Philosophiam ejusque Partes Merita, Hamburg, 1825. The last mentioned work contains a great quantity of information, distinctly conveyed, and within a moderate compass.)
A. Philosophy of Taste or Rhetoric.
The rhetorical works of Cicero may be considered as a sort of triple compound formed by combining the information derived from the lectures and disquisitions of the teachers under whom he studied, and from the writings of the Greeks, especially Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Isocrates, with his own speculative researches into the nature and theory of the art, corrected in his later years by the results of extensive experience. Rhetoric, considered as a science depending upon abstract principles which might be investigated philosophically and developed in formal precepts, had hitherto attracted but little attention in Rome except among the select few who were capable of comprehending the instructions of foreign professors delivered in a foreign tongue; for the Latin rhetoricians were long regarded, and perhaps justly, as ignorant pretenders, who brought such discredit on the study by their presumptuous quackery, that so late as в. с. 92, L. Crassus, who was not likely to be an unjust or illiberal judge in such matters, when censor was desirous of expelling the whole crew from the city. Thus Cicero had the honour of opening up to the masses of his countrymen a new field of inquiry and mental exercise, and of importing for general national use one of the most attractive productions of Athenian genius and industry.
The Editio Princeps of the collected rhetorical works of Cicero was printed at Venice by Alexandrinus and Asulanus, fol. 1485, containing the De Oratore, the Orator, the Topica, the Partitiones Oratoriae, and the De Optimo Genere Oratorum, and was reprinted at Venice in 1488 and 1495, both in fol. The first complete edition, including, in addition to the above, the Brutus, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, and the De Inventione, was published at Venice by Aldus in 1514, 4to., edited in part by Naugerius. Of modern editions the most notable are the following: that by Schütz, which contains the whole, Lips. 1804, 3 vols. 8vo.; the "Opera Rhetorica Minora," by Wetzel, Lignitz, 1807, containing all with the exceptions of the De Oratore, the Brutus, and the Orator; and the Orator, Brutus, Topica, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, with the notes of Beier and Orelli, Zurich, 1830, 8vo.
1. Rhetoricorum s. De Inventione Rhetorica Libri II.
This appears to have been the earliest of the efforts of Cicero in prose composition. It was intended to exhibit in a compendious systematic form all that was most valuable and worthy of note in the works of the Greek rhetoricians. Aristotle had already performed this task in so far as his own predecessors were concerned; and hence his writings, together with those of his disciples and of the followers of Isocrates, would supply all the necessary materials for selection and combination. According to the original plan, this treatise was to have embraced the whole subject; but there is no reason to fix upon the exact number of four books as the extent contemplated, and it certainly never was completed. The author, after finishing the two which have descended to us, seems to have thrown them aside, and speaks of them at a later period perhaps too slightingly (de Orat. i. 2) as a crude and imperfect performance. After a short preface regarding the origin, rise, progress, use and abuse of eloquence, we find an enumeration and classification of the different branches of the subject. The whole art must be considered under five distinct heads: — 1. Its general character and the position which it occupies among the sciences (genus.) 2. The duty which it is called upon to perform (officism.) 3. The end which it seeks to attain (finis.) 4. The subject matter of a speech (materia.) 5. The constituent elements of which a speech is made up (partes rhetoricae.) After remarking cursorily, with regard to the lenus, that the art of rhetoric is a branch of civil knowledge (civilis scientiae), that its officium is, to use all the
