1. But these rules of style, while part of the
student's theoretical knowledge, are not in themselves sufficient to give him oratorical power. In
addition he will require that assured facility which
the Greeks call
ἕξις I know that many have raised
the question as to whether this is best acquired by
writing, reading or speaking, and it would indeed
be a question calling for serious consideration, if we
could rest content with any one of the three.
[
2]
But
they are so intimately and inseparably connected,
that if one of them be neglected, we shall but waste
the labour which we have devoted to the others.
For eloquence will never attain to its full development or robust health, unless it acquires strength
by frequent practice in writing, while such practice
without the models supplied by reading will be like
a ship drifting aimlessly without a steersman.
Again, he who knows what he ought to say and
how he should say it, will be like a miser brooding
over his hoarded treasure, unless he has the weapons
of his eloquence ready for battle and prepared to
deal with every emergency.
[
3]
But the degree in
[p. 5]
which a thing is essential does not necessarily make
it of immediate and supreme importance for the
formation of the ideal orator. For obviously the
power of speech is the first essential, since therein
lies the primary task of the orator, and it is obvious
that it was with this that the art of oratory began,
and that the power of imitation comes next, and
third and last diligent practice in writing.
[
4]
But as
perfection cannot be attained without starting at
the very beginning, the points which come first in
time will, as our training proceeds, become of quite
trivial importance. Now we have reached a stage in
our enquiry where we are no longer considering the
preliminary training of our orator; for I think the
instructions already given should suffice for that;
they are in any case as good as I could make them.
Our present task is to consider how our athlete who
has learnt all the technique of his art from his
trainer, is to be prepared by actual practice for the
contests in which he will have to engage. Consequently, we must assume that our student has
learned how to conceive and dispose his subject
matter and understands how to choose and arrange
his words, and must proceed to instruct him how to
make the best and readiest use of the knowledge
which he has acquired.
[
5]
There can then be no doubt that he must accumulate a certain store of resources, to be employed
whenever they may be required. The resources of
which I speak consist in a copious supply of words
and matter.
[
6]
But while the matter is necessarily
either peculiar to the individual case, or at best
common to only a few, words must be acquired to
suit all and every case. Now, if there were special
[p. 7]
words adapted to each individual thing, they would
require less care, since they would automatically be
suggested by the matter in hand. But since some
words are more literal, more ornate, more significant
or euphonious than others, our orator must not
merely be acquainted with all of them, but must
have them at his fingers' ends and before his very
eyes, so that when they present themselves for his
critical selection, he will find it easy to make the
appropriate choice.
[
7]
I know that some speakers
make a practice of learning lists of synonyms by
heart, in order that one word out of the several
available may at once present itself to them, and
that if, after using one word, they find that it is
wanted again after a brief interval, they may be
able to select another word with the same meaning
and so avoid the necessity of repetition. But this
practice is childish and involves thankless labour,
while it is really of very little use, as it merely
results in the assembly of a disorderly crowd of
words, for the speaker to snatch the first that comes
to hand.
[
8]
On the contrary, discrimination is necessary in
the acquisition of our stock of words; for we are
aiming at true oratory, not at the fluency of a
cheapjack. And we shall attain our aim by reading
and listening to the best writers and orators, since
we shall thus learn not merely the words by which
things are to be called, but when each particular
word is most appropriate.
[
9]
For there is a place in
oratory for almost every word, with the exception
only of a very few, which are not sufficiently seemly.
Such words are indeed often praised when they
occur in writers of iambics
1 or of the old comedy,
[p. 9]
but we need do no more than consider our own
special task. All words, with these exceptions,
may be admirably employed in some place or
other. For sometimes we shall even require low
and common words, while those which would
seem coarse if introduced in the more elegant
portions of our speech may, under certain circumstances, be appropriate enough.
[
10]
Now to acquire a
knowledge of these words and to be acquainted not
merely with their meaning, but with their forms and
rhythmical values, so that they may seem appropriate
wherever employed, we shall need to read and listen
diligently, since all language is received first through
the ear. It was owing to this fact that the children
who, by order of a king, were brought up by a dumb
nurse in a desert place, although they are said to
have uttered certain words, lacked the power of
speech.
2
[
11]
There are, however, some words of such
a nature that they express the same sense by
different sounds, so that it makes no difference to
the meaning which we use, as, for instance,
gladius
and
ensis, which may be used indifferently when we
have to speak of a sword. Others, again, although
properly applied to specific objects, are used by
means of a
trope to express the same sense, as, for
example,
ferrum (steel) and muro (point), which are
both used in the sense of sword.
[
12]
Thus, by the
figure known as
abuse,3 we call all those who commit
a murder with any weapon whatsoever
sicarii (poniarders). In other cases we express our meaning
periphrastically, as, for instance, when Virgil
4
describes cheese as
“Abundance of pressed milk.”
[p. 11]
On the other hand, in a number of instances we
employ
figures5 and substitute one expression for
another. Instead of “I know,” we say “I am not
ignorant,” or “the fact does not escape me,” or “I
have not forgotten,” or “who does not know?” or
“it can be doubted by none.”
[
13]
But we may also
borrow from a word of cognate meaning. For “I
understand,” or “I feel” or “I see” are often
equivalent to “I know.” Reading will provide us
with a rich store of expressions such as these,
and will enable us not merely to use them when
they occur to us, but also in the appropriate manner.
For they are not always interchangeable:
[
14]
for
example, though I may be perfectly correct in
saying, “I see” for “I understand,” it does not
follow that I can say “I understand” for “my eyes
have seen,” and though
mucro may be employed to
describe a sword, a sword does not necessarily mean
the same as
mucro (point).
[
15]
But, although a store
of words may be acquired by these means, we must
not read or listen to orators merely for the sake of
acquiring words. For in everything which we teach
examples are more effective even than the rules
which are taught in the schools, so long as the
student has reached a stage when he can appreciate
such examples without the assistance of a teacher,
and can rely on his own powers to imitate them.
And the reason is this, that the professor of rhetoric
lays down rules, while the orator gives a practical
demonstration.
[
16]
But the advantages conferred by reading and
listening are not identical. The speaker stimulates
us by the animation of his delivery, and kindles the
imagination, not by presenting us with an elaborate
[p. 13]
picture, but by bringing us into actual touch with
the things themselves. Then all is life and movement, and we receive the new-born offspring of his
imagination with enthusiastic approval. We are
moved not merely by the actual issue of the trial,
but by all that the orator himself has at stake.
[
17]
Moreover his voice, the grace of his gestures, the adaptation of his delivery (which is of supreme importance
in oratory), and, in a word, all his excellences in
combination, have their educative effect. In reading,
on the other hand, the critical faculty is a surer
guide, inasmuch as the listener's judgment is often
swept away by his preference for a particular speaker,
or by the applause of an enthusiastic audience.
[
18]
For
we are ashamed to disagree with them, and an unconscious modesty prevents us from ranking our own
opinion above theirs, though all the time the taste
of the majority is vicious, and the
claque may
praise even what does not really deserve approval.
[
19]
On the other hand, it will sometimes also happen
that an audience whose taste is bad will fail to award
the praise which is due to the most admirable utterances. Reading, however, is free, and does not hurry
past us with the speed of oral delivery; we can reread a passage again and again if we are in doubt
about it or wish to fix it in the memory. We must
return to what we have read and reconsider it with
care, while, just as we do not swallow our food till
we have chewed it and reduced it almost to a state
of liquefaction to assist the process of digestion, so
what we read must not be committed to the memory
for subsequent imitation while it is still in a crude
state, but must be softened and, if I may use the
phrase, reduced to a pulp by frequent re-perusal.
[p. 15]
[
20]
For a long time also we should read none save the
best authors and such as are least likely to betray our
trust in then, while our reading must be almost as
thorough as if we were actually transcribing what we
read. Nor must we study it merely in parts, but
must read through the whole work from cover to
cover and then read it afresh, a precept which applies
more especially to speeches, whose merits are often
deliberately disguised.
[
21]
For the orator frequently
prepares his audience for what is to come, dissembles
and sets a trap for them and makes remarks at the
opening of his speech which will not have their full
force till the conclusion. Consequently what he
says will often seem comparatively ineffective where
it actually occurs, since we do not realise his motive
and it will be necessary to re-read the speech after
we have acquainted ourselves with all that it contains.
[
22]
Above all, it is most desirable that we should
familiarise ourselves with the facts of the case with
which the speech deals, and it will be well also,
wherever possible, to read the speeches delivered on
both sides, such as those of Aeschines and Demosthenes in the case of Ctesiphon, of Servius Sulpicius
and Messala for and against Aufidia,
6 of Pollio
7 and
Cassius
8 in the case of Asprenas,
9 and many others.
[
23]
And even if such speeches seem unequal in point of
merit, we shall still do well to study them carefully
with a view to understanding the problems raised by
the cases with which they deal: for example, we
should compare the speeches delivered by Tubero
against Ligarius and by Hortensius in defence of
Verres with those of Cicero for the opposite side,
while it will also be useful to know how different
orators pleaded the same case. For example,
[p. 17]
Calidius
10 spoke on the subject of Cicero's house,
Brutus wrote a declamation in defence of Milo, which
Cornelius Celsus wrongly believes to have been
actually delivered in court,
11 and Pollio and Messalla
defended the same clients,
12 while in my boyhood
remarkable speeches delivered by Domitius Afer,
13
Crispus Passienus
14 and Decimis Laelius
15 in defence of Volusenus were in circulation.
[
24]
The reader must not, however, jump to the conclusion that all that was uttered by the best authors is
necessarily perfect. At times they lapse and stagger
beneath the weight of their task, indulge their bent
or relax their efforts. Sometimes, again, they give
the impression of weariness: for example, Cicero
16
thinks that Demosthenes sometimes nods, and Horace
17
says the same of Homer himself.
[
25]
For despite their
greatness they are still but mortal men, and it will
sometimes happen that their reader assumes that
anything which he finds in them may be taken as a
canon of style, with the result that he imitates their
defects (and it is always easier to do this than to
imitate their excellences) and thinks himself a
perfect replica if he succeeds in copying the
blemishes of great men.
[
26]
But modesty and circumspection are required in pronouncing judgment on
such great men, since there is always the risk of
falling into the common fault of condemning what
one does not understand. And, if it is necessary to
err on one side or the other, I should prefer that
the reader should approve of everything than that
he should disapprove of much.
[
27]
Theophrastus
18 says that the reading of poets is
of great service to the orator, and has rightly been
followed in this view by many. For the poets will
[p. 19]
give us inspiration as regards the matter, sublimity
of language, the power to excite every kind of
emotion, and the appropriate treatment of character,
while minds that have become jaded owing to the
daily wear and tear of the courts will find refreshment in such agreeable study. Consequently Cicero
19
recommends the relaxation provided by the reading
of poetry.
[
28]
We should, however, remember that the
orator must not follow the poets in everything, more
especially in their freedom of language and their
license in the use of figures. Poetry has been compared to the oratory of display, and further aims
solely at giving pleasure, which it seeks to secure by
inventing what is not merely untrue, but sometimes
even incredible.
[
29]
Further, we must bear in mind
that it can be defended on the ground that it is tied
by certain metrical necessities and consequently cannot always use straightforward and literal language,
but is driven from the direct road to take refuge in
certain by-ways of expression; and compelled not
merely to change certain words, but to lengthen,
contract, transpose or divide them, whereas the
orator stands armed in the forefront of the battle,
fights for a high stake and devotes all his effort to
winning the victory.
[
30]
And yet I would not have his
weapons defaced by mould and rust, but would have
them shine with a splendour that shall strike terror
to the heart of the foe, like the flashing steel that
dazzles heart and eye at once, not like the gleam of
gold or silver, which has no warlike efficacy and is
even a positive peril to its wearer.
[
31]
History, also, may provide the orator with a nutriment which we may compare to some rich and
pleasant juice. But when we read it, we must
[p. 21]
remember that many of the excellences of the historian
require to be shunned by the orator. For history
has a certain affinity to poetry and may be regarded
as a kind of prose poem, while it is written for the
purpose of narrative, not of proof, and designed from
beginning to end not for immediate effect or the
instant necessities of forensic strife, but to record
events for the benefit of posterity and to win glory
for its author. Consequently, to avoid monotony of
narrative, it employs unusual words and indulges in
a freer use of figures.
[
32]
Therefore, as I have already
said,
20 the famous brevity of Sallust, than which
nothing can be more pleasing to the leisured ear of
the scholar, is a style to be avoided by the orator in
view of the fact that his words are addressed to a
judge who has his mind occupied by a number of
thoughts and is also frequently uneducated, while,
on the other hand, the milky fullness of Livy is
hardly of a kind to instruct a listener who looks not
for beauty of exposition, but for truth and credibility.
[
33]
We must also remember that Cicero
21 thinks that not
even 'Thucydidcs or Xenophon will be of much service to an orator, although he regards the style of
the former as a veritable call to arms and considers
that the latter was the mouthpiece of the Muses.
It is, however, occasionally permissible to borrow the
graces of history to embellish our digressions, provided always that we remember that in those portions
of our speech which deal with the actual question
at issue we require not the swelling thews of the
athlete, but the wiry sinews of the soldier, and that
the cloak of many colours which Demetrius of
Phalerum
22 was said to wear is but little suited to
the dust and heat of the forum.
[
34]
There is, it is true,
[p. 23]
another advantage which we may derive from the
historians, which, however, despite its great importance, has no bearing on our present topic; I refer to
the advantage derived from the knowledge of historical facts and precedents, with which it is most desirable that our orator should be acquainted; for such
knowledge will save him from having to acquire all
his evidence from his client and will enable him to
draw much that is germane to his case from the
careful study of antiquity. And such arguments will
be all the more effective, since they alone will be
above suspicion of prejudice or partiality.
[
35]
The fact that there is so much for which we must
have recourse to the study of the philosophers is
the fault of orators who have abandoned
23 to them
the fullest portion of their own task. The Stoics
more especially discourse and argue with great
keenness on what is just, honourable, expedient
and the reverse, as well as on the problems of
theology, while the Socratics give the future orator
a first-rate preparation for forensic debates and
the examination of witnesses.
[
36]
But we must use the
same critical caution in studying the philosophers
that we require in reading history or poetry; that
is to say, we must bear in mind that, even when we
are dealing with the same subjects, there is a wide
difference between forensic disputes and philosophical
discussions, between the law-courts and the lecture-room, between the precepts of theory and the perils
of the bar.
[
37]
Most of my readers will, I think, demand that,
since I attach so much importance to reading, I
should include in this work some instructions as to
what authors should be read and what their special
[p. 25]
excellences may be. To do this in detail would be
an endless task.
[
38]
Remember that Cicero in his
Brutus, after writing pages and pages on the subject
of Roman orators alone, says nothing of his own contemporaries with the exception of Caesar and Marcellus. What limit, then, would there be to my
labours if I were to attempt to deal with them and
with their successors and all the orators of Greece as
well?
[
39]
No, it was a safer course that Livy adopted
in his letter to his son, where he writes that he should
read Cicero and Demosthenes and then such orators
as most resembled them. Still,
[
40]
I must not conceal
my own personal convictions on this subject. I believe
that there are few, indeed scarcely a single one of
those authors who have stood the test of time who will
not be of some use or other to judicious students, since
even Cicero himself admits that he owes a great debt
even to the earliest writers, who for all their talent
were totally devoid of art.
[
41]
And my opinion about
the moderns is much the same. For how few of them
are so utterly crazy as not to have the least shadow
of hope that some portion or other of their work may
have claims upon the memory of posterity? If there
is such an one, he will be detected before we have
perused many lines of his writings, and we shall
escape from him before the experiment of reading
him has cost us any serious loss of time.
[
42]
On the
other hand, not everything that has some bearing on
some department of knowledge will necessarily be of
service for the formation of style, with which we are
for the moment concerned.
Before, however, I begin to speak of individual
authors, I must make a few general remarks about
the variety of judgments which have been passed
[p. 27]
upon them.
[
43]
For there are some who think that only
the ancients should be read and hold that they are
the sole possessors of natural eloquence and manly
vigour; while others revel in the voluptuous and
affected style of to-day, in which everything is designed to charm the ears of the uneducated majority.
[
44]
And even if we turn to those who desire to follow
the correct methods of style, we shall find that some
think that the only healthy and genuinely Attic style
is to be found in language which is restrained and
simple and as little removed as possible from the
speech of every day, while others are attracted by a
style which is more elevated and full of energy and
animation. There are, too, not a few who are devoted to a gentle, elegant and harmonious style. Of
these different ideals I shall speak in greater detail,
when I come to discuss the question of the particular
styles best suited to oratory.
24 For the moment I
shall restrict myself to touching briefly on what the
student who desires to consolidate his powers of
speaking should seek in his reading and to what kind
of reading he should devote his attention. My design is merely to select a few of the most eminent
authors for consideration.
[
45]
It will be easy for the
student to decide for himself what authors most
nearly resemble these: consequently, no one will
have any right to complain if I pass over some of his
favourites. For I will readily admit that there are
more authors worth reading than those whom I propose to mention. But I will now proceed to deal
with the various classes of reading which I consider
most suitable for those who are ambitious of becoming
orators.
[
46]
I shall, I think, be right in following the principle
[p. 29]
laid down by Aratus
25 in the line, “With Jove let
us begin,” and in beginning with Homer. He is like
his own conception of Ocean,
26 which he describes as
the source of every stream and river; for he has
given us a model and an inspiration for every
department of eloquence. It will be generally admitted that no one has ever surpassed him in the
sublimity with which he invests great themes or the
propriety with which he handles small. He is at
once luxuriant and concise, sprightly and serious,
remarkable at once for his fullness and his brevity,
and supreme not merely for poetic, but for oratorical
power as well.
[
47]
For, to say nothing of his eloquence,
which he shows in praise, exhortation and consolation, do not the ninth book containing the embassy
to Achilles, the first describing the quarrel between
the chiefs, or the speeches delivered by the counsellors in the second, display all the rules of art
to be followed in forensic or deliberative oratory?
[
48]
As regards the emotions, there can be no one so illeducated as to deny that the poet was the master of all,
tender and vehement alike. Again, in the few lines
with which he introduces both of his epics, has he
not, I will not say observed, but actually established
the law which should govern the composition of the
exordium? For, by his invocation of the goddesses
believed to preside over poetry he wins the goodwill
of his audience, by his statement of the greatness
of his themes he excites their attention and renders
them receptive by the briefness of his summary.
[
49]
Who can narrate more briefly than the hero
27 who
brings the news of Patroclus' death, or more vividly
than he
28 who describes the battle between the
Curetes and the Aetolians? Then consider his
[p. 31]
similes, his amplifications, his illustrations, digressions, indications of fact, inferences, and all the
other methods of proof and refutation which he
employs. They are so numerous that the majority
of writers on the principles of rhetoric have gone to
his works for examples of all these things.
[
50]
And as
for perorations, what can ever be equal to the prayers
which Priam addresses to Achilles
29 when he comes
to beg for the body of his son? Again, does he not
transcend the limits of human genius in his choice
of words, his reflexions, figures, and the arrangement
of his whole work, with the result that it requires a
powerful mind, I will not say to imitate, for that is
impossible, but even to appreciate his excellences?
[
51]
But he has in truth outdistanced all that have come
after him in every department of eloquence, above
all, he has outstripped all other writers of epic, the
contrast in their case being especially striking owing
to the similarity of the material with which they
deal.
[
52]
Hesiod rarely rises to any height, while a
great part of his works is filled almost entirely with
names
30: none the less, his maxims of moral wisdom
provide a useful model, the smooth flow of his
words and structure merit our approval, and he
is assigned the first place among writers of the
intermediate style.
[
53]
On the other hand, Antimachus
31
deserves praise for the vigour, dignity and elevation of his language. But although practically all
teachers of literature rank him second among epic
poets, he is deficient in emotional power, charm, and
arrangement of matter, and totally devoid of real
art. No better example can be found to show what
a vast difference there is to being near another
writer and being second to him.
[
54]
Panyasis
32 is
[p. 33]
regarded as combining the qualities of the last two
poets, being their inferior in point of style, but
surpassing Hesiod in the choice of his subject and
Antimachus in its arrangement. Apollonius
33 is not
admitted to the lists drawn up by the professors
of literature, because the critics, Aristarchus and
Aristophanes,
34 included no contemporary poets.
None the less, his work is by no means to be
despised, being distinguished by the consistency
with which he maintains his level as a representative of the intermediate type.
[
55]
The subject
chosen by Aratus is lifeless and monotonous, affording no scope for pathos, description of character,
or eloquent speeches. However, he is adequate for
the task to which he felt himself equal. Theocritus
is admirable in his own way, but the rustic and
pastoral muse shrinks not merely from the forum,
but from town-life of every kind.
[
56]
I think I hear
my readers on all sides suggesting the names of
hosts of other poets. What? Did not Pisandros
35
tell the story of Hercules in admirable style?
Were there not good reasons for Virgil and Macer
taking Nicander
36 as a model? Are we to ignore
Euphorion?
37 Unless Virgil had admired him, he
would never have mentioned
“verses written in Chalcidic strain”
in the
Eclogues. Again, had Horace no justification
for coupling the name of Tyrtacus
38 with that of
Homer?
[
57]
To which I reply, that there is no one so
ignorant of poetic literature that he could not, if he
chose, copy a catalogue of such poets from some
[p. 35]
library for insertion in his own treatises. I can
therefore assure my readers that I am well aware
of the existence of the poets whom I pass over in
silence, and am far from condemning them, since I
have already said that some profit may be derived
from every author.
39
[
58]
But we must wait till our
powers have been developed and established to the
full before we turn to these poets, just as at banquets
we take our fill of the best fare and then turn
to other food which, in spite of its comparative
inferiority, is still attractive owing to its variety.
Not until our taste is formed shall we have leisure
to study the elegiac poets as well. Of these, Callimachus is regarded as the best, the second place
being, according to the verdict of most critics,
occupied by Philetas.
40
[
59]
But until we have acquired
that assured facility of which I spoke,
41 we must
familiarise ourselves with the best writers only and
must form our minds and develop an appropriate tone
by reading that is deep rather than wide. Consequently, of the three writers of iambics
42 approved by
the judgment of Aristarchus, Archilochus will be far
the most useful for the formation of the facility in
question.
[
60]
For he has a most forcible style, is full of
vigorous, terse and pungent reflexions, and overflowing with life and energy: indeed, some critics
think that it is due solely to the nature of his
subjects, and not to his genius, that any poets are to
be ranked above him.
[
61]
Of the nine lyric poets
43
Pindar is by far the greatest, in virtue of his inspired
magnificence, the beauty of his thoughts and figures,
the rich exuberance of his language and matter,
and his rolling flood of eloquence, characteristics
which, as Horace
44 rightly held, make him
[p. 37]
inimitable.
[
62]
The greatness of the genius of Stesichorus
45
is shown by his choice of subject: for he sings of the
greatest wars and the most glorious of chieftains,
and the music of his lyre is equal to the weighty
themes of epic poetry. For both in speech and
action he invests his characters with the dignity
which is their due, and if he had only been capable
of exercising a little more restraint, he might,
perhaps, have proved a serious rival to Homer.
But he is redundant and diffuse, a fault which,
while deserving of censure, is nevertheless a defect
springing from the very fullness of his genius.
[
63]
Alcaeus has deserved the compliment of being said
to make music with
quill of gold46