611. Dialogus by Tacitus, Loeb- Summary

611.  Dialogus by Tacitus, Loeb.  I have always thought that I should read this.  I am glad that I have. 
Marcus Aper praises the value of oratory but heavily censures those who pursue poetry.  This statement intrigued me a great deal.
Then Curiatus Maternus defends poetry:  “As for myself may the sweet Muses, as Virgil says, bear me away to their holy places where sacred streams do flow, beyond the reach of anxiety and cares and free from the obligation of performing each day some task that goes against the grain.”
These are the sounds of withdrawal and frustration.  It also may explain why poetry became so bombastic and language artificial.  Without direct application of speech to real audiences language looses vibrant qualities.  The vibrant qualities of active thought.  Oratory during the Republic had direct connection with audiences.
Aper is terse and uses clever turns of phrase.  These are the qualities highly valued at the present he insists.  Also poetical beauty in oratory is admired.  He also offers stern criticism of Cicero.  This I found very interesting for I have read scholars’ works who have used this to critique and condemn Cicero.  But now I have my own fresh perspective.  His attack is much like an invective.  He isolates weaknesses, ignores the strengths of Cicero and makes a fine mockery of him.  This I found doubly interesting for his invective smacks of invective used by Cicero.  Gee I wonder whence came this technique of Aper?  Plus it seems to be that Aper is also employing a time tested technique of invective, perhaps playful to draw out one’s opponents for purposes of discussion.  Cicero in his dialogues use the same technique.
Vipstanus Messala defends the orators of old.  Maternus lends support.  Both agree that orators of old were superior but they discuss why this is so.  Their argument is interesting and instructive.  At one time children were raised on their mother’s knee and elders gave assistance.  Mothers taught religion, recreation and games.  Today they lament the children are handed over to a slave, often someone who is useless and worthless.  Meaningless conversation is pursued in these circumstances at a time when the young are so impressionable.  Moral goodness and self control are not taught.  Actors, gladiators and shows are the topic of conversation.  Teachers are just as bad.  These supply material for class discussion.  Quality authors are not pursued.  Students  do not learn how to understand what is difficult.   Messala uses Cicero’s Brutus what should be the proper school program:  mathematics, philosophy, history, grammar, political experience, human nature, law.... The topics used now they say are devoid of value to real life.  They seem to lament the passing of debate in the Senate and the Forum.  This is attributed to the long period of peace, the inactivity of the commons, peaceful running of the Senate and the success of the imperial system.
Messala also says that time limits too on speeches has had an effect.  Also the tight gowns which attorneys must wear restrict movement.  Plus trials are now held inside which limits the audience.
My reading of this suggests that the imperial system intentionally found ways to restrict scope for public speakers.  This would tend to deflect the ambitious from such a field.  I am sure that these measures also made the court system more efficient.
“Oratory has less prestige and smaller consideration where people are well behaved and ready to obey their rulers.”
So it seems that the imperial system brought about greater stability and prosperity but at a cost.  The range of the intellect was reduced.
Perhaps this is the reason that Tacitus transferred the power and vigor and free spirit of oratory so essential to the Republic to the writing of history.
Tacitus writes: What is the use of long argument in the Senate when good citizens agree so quickly?  Perhaps too this accounts for his aggressive mood at times toward the imperial system. Some of it may simply be attributable to frustration.