ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT. CHAPTER I. How to acquire a command of Diction. §§ 1-4. THE question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§ 8 and ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v). That is the order of development-not necessarily the order of importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in the first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric, but with the best methods of applying theory to practice. §§ 5-15. The necessary store of things and words can be obtained only by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the schools. §§ 16-19. The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former more 'catching,' the latter more independent. §§ 20-26. The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to continual faultfinding. § 27-30. The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greater B elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the orator, whose stage is a battlefield where he must ever strive for the mastery. § 31-34. History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is rather outside the scope of the present chapter. § 35-36. Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that of the law-court. §§ 37-42. In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,—at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to recommend what is profitable for the formation of style. § 43-45. Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other. The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models: it does not profess to be exhaustive. ff 46-84. GREEK LITERATURE. §§ 46-72. GREEK POETRY. §§ 46-81. Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry proper. The praise of Homer, §§ 46-51: 'it is much to understand, impossible to rival, his greatness.' Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of the 'middle style': Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus, Theocritus, and others, §§ 52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, § 58. Of iambographi the typical writer is Archilochus, §§ 59-60. The chief lyric poets are Pindar (§ 61), Stesichorus (§ 62), Alcaeus (§ 63), and Simonides (§ 64). ff 65-72. Dramatic poetry. The Old Comedy (§§ 65–66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the orator than any other class of poetry,—always excepting Homer. Tragedy (§§ 67–68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was imitated by Menander (§§ 69–72), the 'mirror of life,' who might alone suffice to form the orator. Menander's superiority to all other comic dramatists. * 73-75. GREEK HISTORIANS. The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus ('the little Thucydides ') : Ephorus, and others. §§ 76-80. GREEK ORATORS. Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either too much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: 'more flesh, less muscle.' Hyperides §§ 81-84. GREEK PHILOSOPHERS. Demetrius of Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds the first place. Of Xenophon's artless charm it might be said that 'Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.' Aristotle is famous alike for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect. §§ 85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE. §§ 85-100. ROMAN POETRY. §§ 85-92. Epic Poets. Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even Homer, however little he may rival Homer's best passages. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator's resources. Ennius is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire, are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: 'the poet's ivy is entwined with the conquering bay.' §§ 93-96. Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry. In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own. Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote saturae of the earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric poet,-everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors of greater merit. §§ 97-100. Dramatic Poetry. Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thought and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius's Thyestes may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid's Medea shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of togatae, but his is not a pure art. §§ 101-104. ROMAN HISTORIANS. In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides, Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion, especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries. §§ 105-122. ROMAN ORATORS. Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar 'Attic charm.' Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is however no mere imitator,—' no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.' Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things 'elegans.' Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and Africanus rank highest: the |