THE custom has prevailed and is daily growing commoner of sending boys to the schools of rhetoric much later than is reasonable: this is always the case as regards Latin rhetoric and occasionally applies to Greek as well. The reason for this is twofold: the rhetoricians, more especially our own, have abandoned certain of their duties and the teachers of literature have undertaken tasks which rightly belong to others.
For the rhetorician considers that his duty is merely to declaim and
give instruction in the theory and practice of declamation and confines
his activities to deliberative and judicial themes, regarding all others
as beneath the dignity of his profession; while the teacher of
literature is not satisfied to take what is left him (and we owe him a
debt of gratitude for this), but even presumes to handle declamations in
character and deliberative themes, suasoriae are
declamations on deliberative themes (e.g. Hannibal deliberates
whether he should cross the Alps).
Consequently subjects which once formed the first stages of rhetoric
have come to form the final stages of a literary education, and boys who
are ripe for more advanced study are kept back in the inferior school
and practise rhetoric under the direction of teachers of literature.
Thus we get the absurd result that a boy is not regarded as fit to go on
to the schools of declamation till he knows how to declaim.
Grammatice, which we translate as the science of
letters, must learn to know its own limits, especially as it has
encroached so far beyond the boundaries to which its unpretentious name
should restrict it and to which its earlier professors actually confined
themselves. Springing from a tiny fountain-head, it has gathered
strength from the historians and critics and has swollen to the
dimensions of a brimming river, since, not content with the theory of
correct speech, no inconsiderable subject, it has usurped the study of
practically all the highest departments of knowledge.
On the other hand rhetoric, which derives its name from the power of eloquence, must not shirk its peculiar duties nor rejoice to see its own burdens shouldered by others. For the neglect of these is little less than a surrender of its birthright.
I will of course admit that there may be a few professors of literature who have acquired sufficient knowledge to be able to teach rhetoric as well; but when they do so, they are performing the duties of the rhetorician, not their own.
A further point into which we must enquire concerns the age at which a
boy may be considered sufficiently advanced to profit by the
instructions of the rhetorician. In this connexion we must consider not
the boy's actual age, but the progress he has made in his studies. To
put it briefly, I hold that the best answer to the question When
should a boy be sent to the school of rhetoric?
is this, When he is fit.
But this question is really
dependent on that previously raised. For if the duties of the teacher of
literature are prolonged to include instruction in deliberative
declamation, this will
We know that the orators of earlier days improved their eloquence by
declaiming themes and common-places communes loci = passages
dealing with some general principle or theme. For theses see controversiae are declamations on controversial or
judicial themes. A general rule or law is stated: then a special
case, which has to be solved in accordance with the law. An
abbreviated controversia is to be found in I.
x. 33, and they occur frequently hereafter (cp. esp.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.