1 From this we can clearly
see what a scandalous dereliction of duty it is for
the schools of rhetoric to abandon this department
of their work, which was not merely its first, but
for a long time its sole task.
[10]
What is there in
those exercises of which I have just spoken that
does not involve matters which are the special concern of rhetoric and further are typical of actual
legal cases? Have we not to narrate facts in
the law-courts? Indeed I am not sure that this is
not the most important department of rhetoric in
actual practice.
[11]
Are not eulogy and denunciation
frequently introduced in the course of the contests
of the courts? Are not common-places frequently
inserted in the very heart of lawsuits, whether, like
those which we find in the works of Cicero, they are
directed against vice, or, like those published by
Quintus Hortensius, deal with questions of general
interest such as “whether small points of argument should carry weight,” or are employed to
defend or impugn the credibility of witnesses?
[12]
These are weapons which we should always have
stored in our armoury ready for immediate use as
occasion may demand. The critic who denies that
[p. 211]
such matters concern an orator is one who will
refuse to believe that a statue is being begun
when its limbs are actually being cast. Some will
think that I am in too great a hurry, but let no one
accuse me of thinking that the pupil who has been
entrusted to the rhetorician should forthwith be
withdrawn from the teacher of literature.
[13]
The latter
will still have certain hours allotted him, and there
is no reason to fear that a boy will be overloaded by
receiving instruction from two different masters. It
will not mean any increase of work, but merely the
division among two masters of the studies which
were previously indiscriminately combined under one:
and the efficiency of either teacher will be increased.
This method is still in vogue among the Greeks, but
has been abandoned by us, not perhaps without some
excuse, as there were others ready to step into the
rhetorician's shoes.
II. As soon therefore as a boy has made sufficient
progress in his studies to be able to follow what I
have styled the first stage of instruction in rhetoric,
he should be placed under a rhetorician. Our first
task must be to enquire whether the teacher is of
good character.
[2]
The reason which leads me to deal
with this subject in this portion of my work is not
that I regard character as a matter of indifference
where other teachers are concerned, (I have already
shown how important I think it in the preceding
book), but that the age to which the pupil has now
attained makes the mention of this point especially
necessary.
[3]
For as a rule boys are on the verge of
manhood when transferred to the teacher of rhetoric
and continue with him even when they are young
men: consequently we must spare no effort to secure
[p. 213]
that the purity of the teacher's character should
preserve those of tenderer years from corruption,
while its authority should keep the bolder spirits
from breaking out into licence.
[4]
Nor is it sufficient
that he should merely set an example of the highest
personal self-control; he must also be able to govern
the behaviour of his pupils by the strictness of his
discipline.
[5]
Let him therefore adopt a parental attitude to his
pupils, and regard himself as the representative of
those who have committed their children to his
charge. Let him be free from vice himself and
refuse to tolerate it in others. Let him be strict but
not austere, genial but not too familiar: for austerity
will make him unpopular, while familiarity breeds
contempt. Let his discourse continually turn on what
is good and honourable; the more he admonishes,
the less he will have to punish. He must control
his temper without however shutting his eyes to
faults requiring correction: his instruction must be
free from affectation, his industry great, his demands
on his class continuous, but not extravagant.
[6]
He
must be ready to answer questions and to put
them unasked to those who sit silent. In praising
the recitations of his pupils he must be neither
grudging nor over-generous: the former quality will
give them a distaste for work, while the latter will
produce a complacent self-satisfaction.
[7]
In correcting
faults he must avoid sarcasm and above all abuse:
for teachers whose rebukes seem to imply positive
dislike discourage industry.
[8]
He should declaim
daily himself and, what is more, without stint, that
his class may take his utterances home with them.
For however many models for imitation he may
[p. 215]
give them from the authors they are reading, it will
still be found that fuller nourishment is provided by
the living voice, as we call it, more especially when
it proceeds from the teacher himself, who, if his
pupils are rightly instructed, should be the object
of their affection and respect. And it is scarcely
possible to say how much more readily we imitate
those whom we like.
[9]
I strongly disapprove of the prevailing practice of
allowing boys to stand up or leap from the seats in
the expression of their applause. Young men, even
when they are listening to others, should be
temperate in manifesting their approval. If this
be insisted upon, the pupil will depend on his
instructor's verdict and will take his approval as
a guarantee that he has spoken well.
[10]
The worst
form of politeness, as it has come to be called, is
that of mutual and indiscriminate applause, a practice
which is unseemly, theatrical and unworthy of a
decently disciplined school, in addition to being the
worst foe to genuine study. For if every effusion is
greeted with a storm of ready-made applause, care
and industry come to be regarded as superfluous.
[11]
The audience no less than the speaker should therefore keep their eyes fixed on their teacher's face, since
thus they will learn to distinguish between what is
praiseworthy and what is not: for just as writing
gives facility, so listening begets the critical
faculty.
[12]
But in the schools of to-day we see boys
stooping forward ready to spring to their feet: at
the close of each period they not merely rise, but
rush forward with shouts of unseemly enthusiasm.
Such compliments are mutual and the success of a
declamation consists in this kind of applause. The
[p. 217]
result is vanity and empty self-sufficiency, carried to
such an extent that, intoxicated by the wild enthusiasm of their fellow-pupils, they conceive a spite
against their master, if his praise does not come up
to their expectation.
[13]
But teachers must also insist
on receiving an attentive and quiet hearing from the
class when they themselves declaim. For the
master should not speak to suit his pupil's standard,
but they should speak to suit his. Further he should,
if possible, keep his eyes open to note the points
which each boy praises and observe the manner in
which he expresses his approval, and should rejoice
that his words give pleasure not only for his own
sake, but for that of those who show sound judgment in their appreciation.
[14]
I do not approve of boys sitting mixed with young
men. For even if the teacher be such an one as we
should desire to see in charge of the morals and
studies of the young, and can keep his youthful
pupils under proper control, it is none the less
desirable to keep the weaker members separate from
the more mature, and to avoid not only the actual
charge of corruption but the merest suspicion of it.
[15]
I have thought it worth while to put my views on
this subject quite briefly. For I do not think it
necessary even to warn the teacher that both he and
his school must be free from the grosser vices. And
should there be any father who does not trouble to
choose a teacher for his son who is free from the
obvious taint of immorality, he may rest assured
that all the other precepts, which I am attempting
to lay down for the benefit of our youth, will be
absolutely useless to him, if he neglects this.
III. I do not think that I should pass by in silence
[p. 219]
even the opinion of those who, even when they
regard boys as ripe for the rhetorician, still do not
think that they should at once be placed under the
most eminent teacher available, but prefer to keep
them for a while under inferior masters, on the
ground that in the elementary stages a mediocre
instructor is easier to understand and to imitate, and
less reluctant to undertake the tiresome task of teaching the rudiments as being beneath his notice.
[2]
I do
not think that I need waste much time in pointing
out how much better it is to absorb the best possible
principles, or how hard it is to get rid of faults which
have once become engrained; for it places a double
burden on the shoulders of the later teacher and
the preliminary task of unteaching is harder than
that of teaching.
[3]
It is for this reason that the
famous piper Timotheus is said to have demanded
from those who had previously been under another
master a fee double the amount which he charged
for those who came to him untaught. The mistake
to which I am referring is, however, twofold. First
they regard these inferior teachers as adequate for
the time being and are content with their instruction
because they have a stomach that will swallow anything:
[4]
this indifference, though blameworthy in
itself, would yet be tolerable, if the teaching provided
by these persons were merely less in quantity and
not inferior in quality as well. Secondly, and this
is a still commoner delusion, they think that those
who are blest with greater gifts of speaking will not
condescend to the more elementary details, and that
consequently they sometimes disdain to give attention to such inferior subjects of study and sometimes
are incapable of so doing.
[5]
For my part I regard the
[p. 221]
teacher who is unwilling to attend to such details
as being unworthy of the name of teacher: and as
for the question of capacity, I maintain that it is the
most capable man who, given the will, is able to do
this with most efficiency. For in the first place it is a
reasonable inference that a man blest with abnormal
powers of eloquence will have made careful note of
the various steps by which eloquence is attained,
and in the second place the reasoning faculty,
[6]
which
is specially developed in learned men, is all-important
in teaching, while finally no one is eminent in the
greater things of his art if he be lacking in the lesser.
Unless indeed we are asked to believe that while
Phidias modelled his Jupiter to perfection, the
decorative details of the statue would have been
better executed by another artist, or that an orator
does not know how to speak, or a distinguished
physician is incapable of treating minor ailments.
[7]
“Yes” it may be answered “but surely you do not
deny that there is a type of eloquence that is
too great to be comprehended by undeveloped
boys?” Of course there is. But this eloquent
teacher whom they fling in my face must be a
sensible man with a good knowledge of teaching and
must be prepared to stoop to his pupil's level, just as
a rapid walker, if walking with a small child, will
give him his hand and lessen his own speed and
avoid advancing at a pace beyond the powers of his
little companion.
[8]
Again it frequently happens that
the more learned the teacher, the more lucid and
intelligible is his instruction. For clearness is the
first virtue of eloquence, and the less talented a man
is, the more he will strive to exalt and dilate himself,
just as short men tend to walk on tip-toe and weak
[p. 223]
men to use threats.
[9]
As for those whose style is
inflated or vicious, and whose language reveals a
passion for high-sounding words or labours under
any other form of affectation, in my opinion they
suffer not from excess of strength but of weakness,
like bodies swollen not with the plumpness of
health but with disease, or like men who weary of
the direct road betake them to bypaths. Consequently the worse a teacher is, the harder he will
be to understand.
[10]
I have not forgotten that I stated in the preceding book, when I urged that school was preferable
to home education, that pupils at the commencement of their studies, when progress is as yet
but in the bud, are more disposed to imitate their
schoolfellows than their masters, since such imitation
comes more easily to them. Some of my readers
may think that the view which I am now maintaining
is inconsistent with my previous statement.
[11]
But I
am far from being inconsistent: for my previous
assertion affords the strongest reason for selecting the
very best teachers for our boys; since pupils of a
first rate master, having received a better training,
will when they speak say something that may be
worthy of imitation, while if they commit some
mistake, they will be promptly corrected. But the
incompetent teacher on the other hand is quite
likely to give his approval to faulty work and by the
judgment which he expresses to force approval
on the audience.
[12]
The teacher should therefore be
as distinguished for his eloquence as for his good
character, and like Phoenix in the Iliad be able to
teach his pupil both how to behave and how to
speak.
[p. 225]
1 3. vi. 96).
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.