No ranting or raving philosophers. Seneca, Epistles 4.40.6-8

Seneca continues explaining good philosophical rhetoric to Lucilius. You want to speak fluently, he thinks, without undue hesitation, but not so quickly that you lose your audience, or sacrifice the ability to catch yourself mid-sentence, should you meet with something that requires reframing. He draws here on experience with Roman courts, where orators played the role of advocates to the judicial magistrate. Philosophers speak as advocates to the court of their listeners, he hints, some of whom are like a brand-new magistrate, unused to hearing cases argued and liable to miss something important, especially if the advocates get too passionate and cease to be cogent.

Sed ut pleraque quae fieri posse non crederes cognovisse satis est, ita istos qui verba exercuerunt abunde est semel audisse. Quid enim quis discere, quid imitari velit? quid de eorum animo iudicet quorum oratio perturbata et immissa est nec potest reprimi? Quemadmodum per proclive currentium non ubi visum est gradus sistitur, sed incitato corporis ponderi servit (†) ac longius quam voluit effertur, sic ista dicendi celeritas nec in sua potestate est nec satis decora philosophiae, quae ponere debet verba, non proicere, et pedetemptim procedere.

Quid ergo? non aliquando et insurget? Quidni? sed salva dignitate morum, quam violenta ista et nimia vis exuit. Habeat vires magnas, moderatas tamen; perennis sit unda, non torrens. Vix oratori permiserim talem dicendi velocitatem inrevocabilem ac sine lege vadentem: quemadmodum enim iudex subsequi poterit aliquando etiam imperitus et rudis? Tum quoque, cum illum aut ostentatio abstulerit aut effectus (‡) impotens sui, tantum festinet atque ingerat quantum aures pati possunt.

There are many things in the world that you would not believe possible, but seeing them once is enough to change your mind: even so it is more than sufficient just once to hear the ranters who work their words to death. What would anyone want to learn or imitate from them? What should one make of a mind whose utterance is confused and wild, incapable of being restrained? Cliff-runners do not govern their steps by sight: the momentum of their bodies holds them captive, carrying them off further than they want. Even so the loose orator's speed of delivery is beyond his own power, and thus unfit for philosophy, which must proceed step by step, placing its words carefully rather than hurl them wildly.

“Why all the fuss? Won't your words occasionally rise up and run away with you?” Of course. How could it be otherwise? But keep the dignity of your character intact: too much reckless force strips it away. Your speech should have great power, but never lose control of itself. Let your eloquence flow ever in waves rather than floods. I would never permit an orator to speak so swiftly that his discourse wanders irrevocable, beyond the reach of law or order. How should a judge follow such pleading, especially one still inexperienced and raw? In the latter case, too, once your rube judge is distracted by a shiny period or his own inability to keep focus, he will only quicken and carry on as much of your speaking as his ears can bear.

---

(†) MSS also read serpit and se rapit for servit here.

(‡) Muretus wants this to be affectus.