This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
19. I quite realise that there is a further question as to whether eloquence derives most from
nature or from education. This question really lies
outside the scope of our inquiry, since the ideal
orator must necessarily be the result of a blend of
both. But I do regard it as of great importance
that we should decide how far there is any real
question on this point.
[2]
For if we make an absolute
divorce between the two, nature will still be able to
accomplish much without the aid of education,
while the latter is valueless without the aid of
nature. If, on the other hand, they are blended in
equal proportions, I think we shall find that the
average orator owes most to nature, while the perfect orator owes more to education. We may take
a parallel from agriculture. A thoroughly barren
soil will not be improved even by the best cultivation,
while good land will yield some useful produce
without any cultivation; but in the case of really
rich land cultivation will do more for it than its own
natural fertility.
[3]
Had Praxiteles attempted to carve
a statue out of a millstone, I should have preferred
a rough block of Parian marble to any such statue.
On the other hand, if the same artist had produced
a finished statue from such a block of Parian marble,
its artistic value would owe more to his skill than
to the material. To conclude, nature is the raw
material for education: the one forms, the other is
formed. Without material art can do nothing,
material without art does possess a certain value,
while the perfection of art is better than the best
material.
[p. 351]
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.