<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:2.19.1-2.20.2</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:2.19.1-2.20.2</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="19" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. <pb n="v1-3 p.351"/>
                     </p></div></div><div n="20" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> More important is the question whether rhetoric is to be regarded as one
                            of the indifferent arts, which in themselves deserve neither praise nor
                            blame, but are useful or the reverse according to the character of the
                            artist; or whether it should, as not a few even among philosophers hold,
                            be considered as a virtue. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For my own part I regard the practice of rhetoric which so many have
                            adopted in the past and still follow to-day, as either no art at all,
                            or, as the Greeks call it, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀτεχνία</foreign>
                            (for I see numbers of speakers without the least pretension to method or
                            literary training rushing headlong in the direction in which hunger or
                            their natural shamelessness calls them); or else it is a bad art such as
                            is styled <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακοτεχνία.</foreign> For there have,
                            I think, been many persons and there are still some who have devoted
                            their powers of speaking to the destruction of their fellow-men. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>