Letter 103.15

My lord, [the opening is damaged.] These methods soften the words and make them enter the minds of hearers more effectively, without giving offense. These, no doubt, are the things you consider crooked, insincere, strained, and least suited to true friendship. But I think every speech without such arts is absurd, rough, unfamiliar, in short lifeless and useless. Nor do I think such devices are less necessary for philosophers than for orators. In this matter I shall not use, as they say, testimony from the orators' own household, but the testimony of the most eminent philosophers, the oldest and finest poets, and finally the daily practice of life and the experience of every art. What, then, do you think of Socrates, that chief of wisdom and eloquence together? I have summoned him first and foremost as a witness before you. Did he use a kind of speech in which there was nothing indirect, nothing at times concealed? By what methods did he usually turn and ensnare Protagoras, Polus, Thrasymachus, and the other sophists? When did he meet them in open battle? When did he not attack from ambush? From whom, it seems, was born that inverted way of speaking that the Greeks call irony? And how did he usually address Alcibiades and the other young men made fierce by birth, fame, or wealth? With a quarrel, or with tact? By sharply reproaching their faults, or by gently proving them wrong? Socrates certainly did not lack seriousness or force, the force with which the Cynic Diogenes commonly raged. But he saw that the minds of people, and especially of young people, are more easily soothed by courteous and approachable speech than conquered by harsh and violent words. So he did not storm the errors of young men with siege galleries and battering rams; he undermined them with tunnels. His hearers never left him torn apart, though sometimes they left him pricked. Human nature is untamed against those who attack it, but won over by those who coax it. We yield more easily to requests than we are frightened off by violence, and advice does more to correct us than scolding. We follow the courtesy of those who warn us; we resist the harshness of those who rebuke us.

To my Lord. 1. . . . . be softened and so more effectually without any friction enter into the minds of hearers. And these are actually the things which you think crooked and insincere and laboured and by no means reconcilable with true friendship! But I think all speech without these conventions rude and rustic and incongruous, in a word, inartistic and inept. Nor, in my opinion, can philosophers dispense with such artifices any more than orators. In support of my contention I will adduce not "family" evidence, as the phrase is, from oratory, but I will call upon the most outstanding philosophers, the most ancient and excellent poets, in fact, the everyday practice and usage of life and the experience of all the arts. 2. What, then, have you to say about that master of eloquence no less than of wisdom, Socrates?—for him, first and foremost, I have subpoenaed as witness before you—did he cultivate a style of speech in which there was nothing crooked, nothing at times dissembled? By what methods was he wont to disconcert and entrap Protagoras and Polus and Thrasymachus and the other Sophists? When did he meet them without masking his batteries? When not attack them from an ambush? From whom, if not from him, can we say that the inverted form of speech, which the Greeks call εἰρωνεία , took its rise? In what fashion, again, used he to accost and address Alcibiades and the other young men who prided. themselves on birth or beauty or riches? In terms of censure or in terms of suavity? With bitter reproof when they went wrong, or with gentle persuasion? And yet Socrates assuredly had as much seriousness or force as the cynic Diogenes shewed in his habitual brutality. But he saw, in fact, that the dispositions of men in a measure, and of young men in particular, are more easily won over by courteous and sympathetic than by bitter and unrestrained language. And so he did not attack the errors of youths with mantlets and battering rams, but sapped them with mines, and his hearers never parted from him torn, though sometimes teased. For the race of mankind is by nature stiff-necked against the high-handed, but responds readily to coaxing. Therefore we give way more willingly to entreaties than are frightened into submission by violence, and advice rather than denunciation leads us to improve. So we listen to admonition courteously conveyed, but severity of correction makes us contumacious.

ad M. Caesarem 3.16 [47 Hout; 1.100 Haines] <Domino meo.> <...> molliantur atque ita efficacius sine ulla ad animos offensione audientium penetrent. Haec sunt profecto, quae tu putas obliqua et insincera et anxia et verae amicitiae minime adcommodata. At ego sine istis artibus omnem orationem absurdam et agrestem et incognitam, denique inertem atque inutilem puto. Neque magis oratibus arbitror necessaria ejusmodi artificia quam philosophis. In ea re non oratorum domesticis, quod dicitur, testimoniis utar, sed philosophorum eminentissimis, poetarum vetustissimis excellentissimisque, vitae denique cotidianae usu atque cultu artiumque omnium experimentis. 2 Quidnam igitur tibi videtur princeps ille sapientiae simul atque eloquentiae Socrates? Huic enim primo ac potissimo testimonium apud te denuntiavi: Eone usus genere dicendi, in quo nihil est oblicum, nihil interdum dissimulatum? Quibus ille modis Protagoram et Polum et Thrasymachum et sophistas ceteros versare atque inretire solitus? Quando eautem perta arta congressus est? Quando non ex insidiis adortus? Quo ex homine nata inversa oratio videtur, quam Graece εἰρωνείαν appellant. Alcibiaden vero ceterosque adulescentis genere aut fama aut opibus feroces quo pacto appellare atque adfari solebat? per jurgium an per πολιτείαν, exprobrando acriter quae delinquerent an leniter arguendo? Neque deerat Socrati profecto gravitas aut vis, qua tum cynicus Diogenes volgo saeviabat; sed vidit profecto ingenia partim hominum ac praecipue adulescentium facilius comi atque adfabili oratione leniri quam acri violentaque superari. Itaque non vineis neque arietibus errores adulescentium expugnabat, sed cuniculis subruebat, neque umquam ab eo auditores discessere lacerati sed nonnumquam lacessiti. Est enim genus hominum natura insectantibus indomitum, blandientibus conciliatum. Quamobrem facilius precariis decedimus, quam violentis deterremur, plusque ad corrigendum promovent consilia quam jurgia. Ita comitati monentium obsequimur, inclementiae objurgantium obnitimur.