had; and so Cicero had the opportunity of knowing, and even as a boy could judge how well Crassus spoke Greek; and he used to observe that he would put such questions to Cicero's teachers, and in his conversation make such remarks as showed that nothing was new or strange to him. Antonius also had opportunities of improving himself during his quaestorship in Asia (B.c. 113), and again when he had the province of Cilicia (B.c. 103). He visited Athens on his way to Cilicia, and had daily conversation with the most learned men there. He had also the same opportunities at Rhodes. Cicero, when he was a very young man, knew Antonius, and often used to put questions to him, so far as proper respect to so distinguished a man would allow.

Cicero in his treatise on the Orator, the best of all his writings, attempted to expound the opinions of Crassus and Antonius about the principles of their art, and to preserve as far as he could the memory of these two illustrious Romans. This would hardly have been necessary, he says, if these orators could have been estimated by their writings; but Crassus wrote little, or at least very little of his writings had been preserved, and that little was written when Crassus was a young man. Antonius wrote nothing except a short treatise on oratory of no value, and he was sorry that ever he wrote it. Cicero retained a lively remembrance of these great orators, and he thought it his duty to make their fame imperishable, as far as he could. If he had been writing about the orators Servius Galba (vol. i., p. 22) or C. Carbo, he says that he might have invented, if he chose, for there was nobody living who could contradict him; but when he wrote of Crassus and Antonius, he was writing of orators whom many of his readers had often heard.

The style of these two men was very different. Crassus was dignified, and yet he could be humorous and witty. His language was studiously elegant, but there was no appearance of effort. His sentences were short. He stated a case clearly, and when he was arguing a legal question or treating of principles of equity, he was fertile in argument and in discovering points of similarity. He had little action, little variety in his tone; he never moved about as some

orators did, and seldom stamped his foot. But sometimes his language was vehement, and expressed passion and indignation. Cicero informs us that he was a very ornate speaker, and yet he spoke with great brevity; and this is a rare combination. In sharp answers and repartee he had no equal, and he knew how to deal with a witness and to draw him on to make admissions. A man named Silus had given evidence against Piso the client of Crassus: it was hearsay evidence, which the Romans allowed, but they did not overvalue it. Crassus in his cross-examination of Silus said to him: It is possible, Silus, that the man from whom you say that you heard this said it in a passion. Silus assented. It is possible too, continued Crassus, that you may have misunderstood him. Silus admitted this by such a ready nod of his head as to put himself altogether in the hands of Crassus. It is possible too, said Crassus, that you never heard at all what you say that you did hear. This unexpected conclusion brought on a burst of laughter which put an end to the evidence of Silus. Crassus was engaged in all kinds of cases, and, as we have seen, very soon attained the highest rank among the orators of Rome. Most of the short fragments of his speeches are from orations delivered in the senate and in public assemblies; and this was the kind of oratory in which he excelled.

Antonius was a forensic orator, and perhaps there has never been his equal. When he spoke, he had all his matter at command, and he put every thing in the right place, where it would be most effective. He had a very great memory, and no appearance of preparation. His style was not exactly what could be called the most elegant, but in the selection of his words, their position and combination in a period, he had always in view a principle and some reference to art, which indeed was much more apparent in the embellishment and the turn of the thought than in the expression. Besides these great qualities, his action was peculiarly his own; and if we distribute action into gesture and voice, we may say that his gesture was not that which merely expressed what words might say, but it was in perfect harmony with the thought-the hands, the motion

of the shoulders and sides, the stamping of the foot, the stationary attitude, the gait, and every movement. His voice was steady and uniform, but naturally rather harsh. This accomplished advocate was powerful, vehement, passionate; always well prepared and fortified in every part of his case. Vigorous, acute, and perfectly clear, he would dwell on the strong points of his case: when he was hard pressed by his opponent, he would retire with a good grace, but he followed up every advantage with energy; he could inspire terror, move compassion, and employ all the endless variety of speech without ever wearying his hearers. Antonius tells us himself, or Cicero tells us for him, how he used to manage a case. He concludes with a remark which may be useful: an advocate should ever be on his guard, and Antonius was particularly anxious on this head, not so much to attempt to strengthen his case, as to take care that he did not injure it. A man must of course try to do both, but it is much more disgraceful to an advocate to damage his case than not to improve it. (De Orat. ii. 72.)

Crassus and Antonius were sometimes opposed, as in the case of C. Sergius Orata. M. Marius Gratidianus had sold to Orata a house which he had bought from Orata a few years before. This house was subject to a Servitus, as the Romans named it, which means that the enjoyment of the ownership of the property was limited by a right which the owner of some adjacent property had with respect to the house of Marius, such, for instance, as a right to the passage of the rain-water through the premises of Marius, or any other right which comes under the head of Servitus. Marius had not mentioned this Servitus in the conditions of sale, and Orata brought an action against him for damages, probably. Crassus was the advocate of Orata, and Antonius was for Marius. It was purely a legal question. Crassus maintained the strict legal right of Orata; that as the vendor had not mentioned this Servitus, which impaired the value of the property sold, he was bound to make compensation. Antonius in reply urged what the Romans called 'aequitas' or fair dealing this Servitus was not unknown to Orata, for he had first sold the house to Marius, and there was therefore no

occasion for Marius to mention it, and Orata was not deceived, for he knew that the property was subject to a Servitus. The question was whether the letter of the law should prevail or the meaning of the rule of law. Antonius had the right side to defend. It was the rule of law that no defect should be concealed from the buyer of a thing, and here there was no concealment, for the purchaser Orata knew that the property was subject to a Servitus. Still there was something to say on the side of the literal interpretation of the rule, that all defects in a thing known to the seller should be declared to the purchaser. But when we look to the purpose of the suit, whether it was to rescind the contract or to claim damages, we are at a loss to know what kind of an argument Crassus would make, for his client had suffered no damage by the informality in the terms of sale.

This is an instance of the kind of questions that arose sometimes even among so practical a people as the Romans. Roman usage separated the office of 'jurisconsultus' or lawyer from that of 'orator' or advocate. The lawyer was often no

speaker, and the speaker often knew little of law, though he knew enough to argue a legal question, or at least he was able to master so much of the law as each case required. It was the orator's business to deal with direct evidence and to establish facts, or where the evidence was defective, to draw probable conclusions. The application of the law when the facts were ascertained would not generally be difficult, for most questions, however complicated they seem, may be reduced to a simple form; and as the wise know, it is not so much the uncertainty of law that we have to complain of, as the difficulty of establishing the facts to which the law may be applied.

Orata was a man fond of good living and a friend of Crassus, who had also a taste for luxury, and possessed a splendid house on the Palatine hill. In order to be less dependent on the winds and waves, ponds for various kinds of fish, and

was, his table was always well supplied.

Orata had made salt whatever the weather He had also erected

spacious and lofty buildings on the shores of the salt lagoon

named the Lucrine Lake, for the purpose of breeding oysters. But the lagoon was public property and let to a Publicanus or public contractor, named Considius, who complained of Orata's encroachments on the lagoon, and brought an action against him. Crassus was on this occasion the advocate of his friend Orata.

There is a fragment of Diodorus on the increase of luxury at Rome, which may be fitly introduced here, though we are not quite certain what chronological place it occupied in his history. He begins with speaking of those old times, such as people now-a-days talk of, when the Romans had good principles and good habits, by which they slowly increased in power till they attained the most glorious and extensive dominion that any nation ever had. But in more recent times, after subduing most nations and enjoying long peace, they changed their old frugal habits for a pestilent rivalry. As the wars ceased, the young men fell into habits of luxury and intemperance, and wealth supplied them with the means of gratifying their desires. Men began to prefer the costly to the simple, and an indolent life to the study of the military art. A man was considered fortunate by the vulgar not for possessing merit, but for enjoying through life the pleasures that he liked best. Accordingly expensive dinners became the fashion, and rare scents, and rich coverings for couches with patterns of flowers, and furniture ornamented with silver and ivory and all other costly materials, on which the artist's most elaborate skill was displayed. Wines which gave a moderate degree of satisfaction to the taste were rejected, and only Falernian and Chian, and other wines of equal quality were used. Of fish too and other things for the table those which had the highest repute for pleasing the palate were freely consumed. The young men used to go about the Forum wearing clothes remarkable for their softness, so thin that the form could be seen through them, and in fineness like women's dresses. Now as there was a demand for every thing that contributed to enjoyment and pestilent display, the prices of all such things rose to an incredible height. A jar of wine was sold for a hundred denarii, and a jar of salt fish from the Euxine at four hundred. Such cooks as