Cicero's literary character has come down to posterity in the double light of an orator and a philosopher. As an orator, he has no rival in antiquity but Demosthenes. In comparing them, Quinctilian has given him the pre ference ; while lIume, Fciielon, and, generally speaking, the majority of moderns, seem to regard the Greek mas ter of eloquence to have come nearest to the idea of per fection. In comparing geniuses of so high a description, the preference is rather an affair or taste than demonstra tion; and perhaps it is of more importance to appre ciate the distinctive characters and particular merits of each, than to attempt that decision of pre-eminence which will always be a problem. To the clear, close, and rapid simplicity of the Greek orator, we may con trast the copious, inexhaustible variety, the deliciousness and magnificenc.c of Cicero's eloquenc.c. The logic of Demosthenes is irresistible, the fire of his enthusiasm is the light of conviction, his progress to the point of at tack is more vehement and direct. Cicero's manner has more preparation ; he studies every possible resource. The tactics of the Greek orator have been compared to an assault upon a city by storm, and Cicero to a besieger making- his approaches in due form, constructing his pa rallels, cutting off the issues of his enemy, and surround ing him at all points. Much has been written, to prove that these characteristics of their respective eloquence arose necessarily out of the circumstances of the times in which they lived, and the people whom they address ed. That the lively and shrewd Athenians, would not have listened to the luxuriant ornaments of Cicero's style ; and that the Romans were to proud to have suf fered the bold and blunt appeals of Demosthenes, too grave to have required the electrifying shocks by which the Greek orator found it necessary to fix N olatile attention. Those speculative theories, however, are by no means satisfactory. The Roman senate were, at least, as shrewd judges of style, as likely to be fond of unadorn ed and nervous simplicity, as the mob of Athens ; and if the Roman character, in general, was more phlegmatic, it was more likely, than the Greeks, to have required the electric vehemence of Demosthenes. The difference of the orators lay in their genius, perhaps, more than their circumstances. Cicero might have been at Athens, it is difficult to conceive, that Demosthenes in the forum, or before the conscript fathers, would hat e been equally effective as when he fuhnined over Greece. It seems indeed to be generally conceded, that for plead ing to carry conviction, Demosthenes is supreme. Ct,tild we suppose them both alive at this moment, and both equally ardent and instructed in some mighty public cause which required to be supported by eloquence, could we suppose all the enlightened spirits who have ever perused and felt the force of their works, to he named as judges in selecting the one or other to plead that cause, most probably the greater number of suffrages would he, that the office of pleader should be assigned to the (:reek. This, if admitted, might appear at once to decide the point of superiority on the side of Demosthenes. But 1)ernosthenes and Cicero, it should be remembered, are now submitted to posterity, not merely as pleaders, but as line writers; and another question arises, from which of the two will the mind of their readers derive the great est degree of pleasure ? In this view of their merits, the greater variety of Cicero's subjects, the richer luxuries of his Vtion and imagery, the intermixture of a finer, pathetic, and philosophical spirit in his orations, give them a value, independent of the pleading which the v contain, or the models of argumentation which they exhibit. Ilad they been opposed to the terser eloquence of Demosthenes, before an audience assembled to decide rigidly on a point in dispute, those graces ?night possibly have furnished an inferior pleading ; but to posterity they afford a richer treasure of literature, and perhaps alto gether a nobler exhibition of the genius of one man. The manner of Cicero, we arc told, fell into discredit in the succeeding age. Some considerable authors, with Sallust at their head, struck into a closer and more sen tentious style o[ writing, pretending to emulate the pu rity of Demosthenes and Thucydides, though they were far from reaching it. Even in his own time, we find him replying to those censurers vvlio reproached him for want of Attie simplicity. Brutus was of the number ; al though, it is clear, from Cicero's appeal against their criticisms, that what they meant by simplicity, was only a naked and starved diction, devoid of all legitimate elo quence. Under the age of Augustus, political causes
contributed to debauch the Roman taste ; and under that reign, it became fashionable to decry the taste and man ner of Cicero. Virgil, in giving the province of elo quence to the Greeks, did not choose to offend his pa tron by a compliment to Tully. The two Asinii ones, father and son, distinguished orators of the same age, attacked his abilities even with acrimony, and the younger wrote a book to prove that his father excelled Cicero. Augustus was himself a dabbler both in prose and verse, and probably contributed to bring a corrupted style into fashion. Alecxnas was an Anticiceronian both in theory and practice. 'The character of authorship, some of the succeeding Roman einperors affected, and the danger of either departing from their manner of writing, or of expressing their thoughts in plain lan guage, together with the swarms of Greek rhetoricians who took pains to deride the eloquence of Cicero, gra dually debased the taste of the world, till Quinctilian arose and reformed it, at least in as far as the reputation of Cicero was concerned, whose character as an orator he restored to its true light, concluding with these words, flunc ergo spectemus, hoc propositonz nobis sit excin plum. Ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero placebit.
The philosophical works of Cicero were composed in the stormy period which drove him to retirement, be tween the breaking out of the war of Casar and Pompey, and his own death. One half of them has perished by the ravages of time They formed a complete course of the philosophy of tlie.Greeks, which had followers and admirers at Rome since the time of Lxlius, but few ex pounders. Cicero was the first who had intelligence and enterprize sufficient to exhibit it in all its systems to his countrymen. Its subjects were so new to the Romans, that their language had not terms for the abstract ideas of the Greeks ; and it was he who first created that me taphysical language, of which a portion, disentangled from the jargon of the schools, still exists in modern phi losophy. He commenced with his book entitled Hor tensius, which has been lost. Next followed his ?cade mic Questions, in which he followed the doctrines of Plato. The object of his five dissertations, called the Tusculan Questions, is to discover the most essential means of happiness, which he reduces to live. The contempt of death ; patience in affliction ; firmness in different trials of life; habitual controul over the pas sions ; and the persuasion that virtue ought to seek for no recompence but from itself. This philosophy is con fessedly borrowed from the Academy, and the Portico ; but it is highly embellished by his eloquence. The most pleasing parts of his work are, where he enters on the natural proofs of the immortality of the soul, and the fu ture rewards of a virtuous life.
In his Treatise on the Nature of the Gods, his object seems to be to prove and justify a superintending provi dence. To find a man unenlightened by revelation, de voting the ripeness of his mind to such exalted subjects, may well surprise us ; and our admiration must be com plete, when we find, that, while he stands the advocate of religion, he is so little tainted with superstition. In his book on Divination, he makes every species of ancient imposture and superstition pass in review. His Scipio's Dream, is a fancy piece, built on the Platonic doctrine concerning the soul of the world, and the state of human souls after death. Ilis work De Finibus, on moral ends, contains an account of the opinions of the several Grecian sects upon this subject, and discusses their leading argu ments. His work De Officiis; may he properly termed the Heathen whole Duty of Alan ; a piece, which even Christians cannot read without advantage. His dialogues, entitled Cato and Lanus, the first treating on old age, the second on friendship, are extremely elegant and agreeable pieces of moral writing. His Epistles, perhaps, more justly merit the appellation than any of the same importance, as documents of history, and models of com position, which have ever appeared. His work De Le gibus, which explains the grounds of jurisprudence, is incomplete. His treatises De Republica', and his Econo MiCS, have unfortunately been lost.
To the list of his writings should be added, his rheto rical treatises De Oratore; his book De Claris Oratori bus; and his Orator, addressed to Brutus. See Plutarch. AliddletOn's Life of Cicero. Ciceronis Opera. (a)