curious practice of the Roman law-courts, to direct against Vatinius a speech of fierce invective under the form of questions in his cross-examination. "In defending our surly-tempered friend," he writes immediately afterwards,[1] "I gave him his due, full measure and running over; and, as he particularly wished it, I turned upon Vatinius who was an avowedly hostile witness. I cut into him at my leisure to the satisfaction of heaven and earth. . . The end of it was that Vatinius, impudent and reckless as he is, retired quite baffled and crestfallen."
Cicero's speech against Vatinius is not pleasant reading. The invective, which rises to dignity when aimed at great antagonists, like Catiline and Antony, sinks to vulgar abuse when directed against underlings, such as Vatinius, Piso, and Gabinius. The account which Cicero, in his confidential letter to his brother, gives of the effectiveness of the speech is undoubtedly true; but we can only wonder at the fact. It must be remembered, however, that the Romans tolerated and expected a roundness of invective, which is much at variance with the greater decorum of modern habits of speech. One reason for the difference probably is, that our notions of what is proper and gentlemanlike are an inheritance from days when the practice of duelling compelled every one to be punctilious both about the language he used and the language of which he must take notice. Now, nothing like the duel had existed in the civic communities of the ancient world, and so
- ↑ Ad Q. F., ii., 4, 1.
