<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-eng2:2.21.21-3.1.16</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:2.21.21-3.1.16</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="21" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="21" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Gorgias indeed felt so strongly that it was the orator's duty to speak
                            on every subject, that he used to allow those who attended his lectures
                            to ask him questions on any subject they pleased. Hermagoras also
                            asserted that the material of oratory lay in the cause and the questions
                            it involved, thereby including every subject that can be brought before
                            it. </p></div><div n="22" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> If he denies that general questions <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">See III V. 12–16.</note> are the concern of
                            oratory, he disagrees with me: but if they do concern rhetoric, that <pb n="v1-3 p.367"/> supports my contention. For there is nothing which
                            may not crop up in a cause or appear as a question for discussion. </p></div><div n="23" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Aristotle <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Rhet.</hi> I. iii. 3. </note> himself also by his tripartite
                            division of oratory, into forensic, deliberative and demonstrative,
                            practically brought everything into the orator's domain, since there is
                            nothing that may not come up for treatment by one of these three kinds
                            of rhetoric. </p></div><div n="24" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> A very few critics have raised the question as to what may be the <hi rend="italic">instrument</hi> of oratory. My definition of an
                            instrument is <hi rend="italic"> that without which the material cannot
                                be brought into the shape necessary for the effecting of our object.
                            </hi> But it is not the art which requires an instrument, but the
                            artist. Knowledge needs no instruments, for it may be complete although
                            it produces nothing, but the artist must have them. The engraver cannot
                            work without his chisel nor the painter without his brush. I shall
                            therefore defer this question until I come to treat of the orator as
                            distinct from his art. </p></div></div></div><pb n="v1-3 p.371"/><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="book"><head>Book III</head><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> IN the second book the subject of inquiry was the nature and the end of
                            rhetoric, and I proved to the best of my ability that it was an art,
                            that it was useful, that it was a virtue and that its material was all
                            and every subject that might come up for treatment. I shall now discuss
                            its origin, its component parts, and the method to be adopted in
                            handling and forming our conception of each. For most authors of
                            text-books have stopped short of this, indeed Apollodorus confines
                            himself solely to forensic oratory. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I know that those who asked me to write this work were specially
                            interested in that portion on which I am now entering, and which, owing
                            to the necessity of examining a great diversity of opinions, at once
                            forms by far the most difficult section of this work, and also, I fear,
                            may be the least attractive to my readers, since it necessitates a dry
                            exposition of rules. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In other portions of this work I have attempted to introduce a certain
                            amount of ornateness, not, I may say, to advertise my style (if I had
                            wished to do that, I could have chosen a more fertile theme), but in
                            order that I might thus do something to lure our young men to make
                            themselves acquainted with those principles which I regarded as
                            necessary to the study of rhetoric: for I hoped that by giving them
                            something which was not unpleasant to read I might induce a greater
                            readiness to learn those rules which I feared <pb n="v1-3 p.373"/>
                            might, by the dryness and aridity which must necessarily characterise
                            their exposition, revolt their minds and offend their ears which are
                            nowadays grown somewhat over-sensitive. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Lucretilus has the same object in mind when he states that he has set
                            forth his philosophical system in verse; for you will remember the well
                            known simile which he uses <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">iv.
                                11. See also i. 936.</note> :— <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">And as physicians when they seek to give</l><l part="N">A
                                    draught of bitter wormwood to a child,</l><l part="N">First
                                    smear along the edge that rims the cup</l><l part="N">The liquid
                                    sweets of honey, golden-hued,</l></quote> and the rest. </p></div><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But I fear that this book will have too little honey and too much
                            wormwood, and that though the student may find it a healthy draught, it
                            will be far from agreeable. I am also haunted by the further fear that
                            it will be all the less attractive from the fact that most of the
                            precepts which it contains are not original, but derived from others,
                            and because it is likely to rouse the opposition of certain persons who
                            do not share my views. For there are a large number of writers, who
                            though they are all moving toward the same goal, have constructed
                            different roads to it and each drawn their followers into their own.
                        </p></div><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The latter, however, approve of the path on which they have been
                            launched whatever its nature, and it is difficult to change the
                            convictions implantted in boyhood, for the excellent reason that
                            everybody prefers to have learned rather than to be in process of
                            learning. </p></div><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But, as will appear in the course of this book, there is an infinite
                            diversity of opinions among writers on [his subject, since some have
                            added their own discoveries to those portions of the art which were
                            still shapeless and unformed, <pb n="v1-3 p.375"/> and subsequently have
                            altered even what was perfectly sound in order to establish a claim to
                            originality. </p></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The first writer after those recorded by the poets who is said to have
                            taken any steps in the direction of rhetoric is Empedocles. But the
                            earliest writers of text-books are the Sicilians, Corax and Tisias, who
                            were followed by another from the same island, namely Gorgias of
                            Leontini, whom tradition asserts to have been the pupil of Empedocles.
                        </p></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> He, thanks to his length of days, for he lived to a hundred and nine,
                            flourished as the contemporary of many rhetoricians, was consequently
                            the rival of those whom I have just mentioned, and lived on to survive
                            Socrates. </p></div><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In the same period flourished Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, Prodicus of
                            Ceos, Protagoras of Abdera, for whose instructions, which he afterwards
                            published in a text-book, Euathlus is said to have paid 10,000 <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">About £312.</note> denarii,
                            Hippias of Elis and Alcidamas of Elaea whom Plato <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Phaedr.</hi> 261 D. </note>
                            calls Palamedes. </p></div><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> There was Antiphon also, who was the first to write speeches and who
                            also wrote a text-book and is said to have spoken most eloquently in his
                            own defence; Polycrates, who, as have already said, wrote a speech against Socrates, and Theodorus of
                            Byzantium, who was one of those called <quote>word-artificers</quote> by
                            Plato. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Phaedr. 266</hi> E. </note>
                     </p></div><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Of these Protagoras and Gorgias are said to have been the first to treat
                            commonplaces, Prodicus, Hippias, Protagoras and Thrasymachus the first
                            to handle emotional themes. Cicero in the <hi rend="italic">Brutus</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">vii.
                                27.</note> states that nothing in the ornate rhetorical style was
                            ever committed to writing before Pericles, and that certain of his
                            speeches are still extant. For my part I have been unable to discover
                            anything in <pb n="v1-3 p.377"/> the least worthy of his great
                            reputation for eloquence, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">cp.</hi> XII, ii. 22: x. 49, where Quintilian
                                asserts that all the writings of Pericles have been lost. </note>
                            and am consequently the less surprised that there should be some who
                            hold that he never committed anything to writing, and that the writings
                            circulating under his name are the works of others. </p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> These rhetoricias had many successors, but the most famous of (Gorgias'
                            pupils was Isocrates, although our authorities are not agreed as to who
                            was his teacher: I however accept the statement of Aristotle on the
                            subject. </p></div><div n="14" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> From this point the roads begin to part. The pupils of Isocrates were
                            eminent in every branch of study, and when he was already advanced in
                            years (and he lived to the age of ninety-eight), Aristotle began to
                            teach the art of rhetoric in his afternoon lectures, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Aristotle gave his esoteric
                                lectures in the morning, reserving the afternoon for those of more
                                general interest: see Aul. Gell. xx. v. </note> in which he
                            frequently quoted the wel-known line from the <hi rend="italic">Philoctetes</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Probably
                                the <hi rend="italic">Philoctetes</hi> of Euripides. The original
                                line was <foreign xml:lang="grc">αἰσχρὸν σιωπᾶν, βαρβάρους δ᾽ ἐᾶν
                                    λέγειν,</foreign> which Aristotle travestied by substituting
                                    <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἰσοκράτην</foreign> for <foreign xml:lang="grc">βαρβάρους.</foreign>
                        </note> in the form <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">Isocrates still speaks. 'Twere shame
                                    should I Sit silent.</l></quote> Both Aristotle and Isocrates
                            left text-books on rhetoric, but that by Aristotle is the larger and
                            contains more books. Theodectes, whose work I mentioned above, </p></div><div n="15" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> also lived about the same period: while Theophrastus, the pupil of
                            Aristotle, produced some careful work on rhetoric. After him we may note
                            that the philosophers, more especially the leaders of the Stoic and
                            Peripatetic schools, surpassed even the rhetoricians in the zeal which
                            they devoted to the subject. </p></div><div n="16" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Hermagoras next carved out a path of his own, which numbers have
                            followed: of his rivals Athenaeus seems to have approached him most <pb n="v1-3 p.379"/> nearly. Later still much work was done by
                            Apollonius Molon, Areus, Caecilius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>