Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative worksBaldwin, Charles Sears
History
Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative works
Baldwin, Charles Sears
Classical literature -- History and criticism -- Theory, etc.; Poetics -- History -- To 1500; Rhetoric, Ancient
Crassus returns to the charge with a summary[21] of the actual
training. The student should practise[22] not only extempore
speaking from outline, but also writing. The writing that he
advises here is not for the casting of a given speech in a
particular form, but for education in range and control of
expression. To this end he recommends also wide reading. The
study of law, he adds,[23] should be both of technical detail
and also of larger aspects and relations.
Antonius stands his ground. His second definition of the orator
is substantially a repetition of his first, merely sharpening
the contrast.
“But the orator[24]—and he is the subject of our inquiry—I do
not define as does Crassus, who has seemed to me to include
knowledge of all sciences and arts within the orator’s single
function and name. I think him an orator who can use words
agreeable to hear and thoughts (_sententiis_) adapted to prove
in cases both forensic and deliberative; ... and I would have
him also skilled in voice, gesture, and manner.”
Lest there should seem to be a begging of the question in the
word _sententiis_, which means thoughts and therefore may seem
to imply the studies urged by Crassus, _sententia_ should be
understood rather of the brilliant expression of a single idea
than of a line of thought or of intellectual grasp in general.
That neither of the latter is intended here is shown by the
context.
Because certain orators, Antonius resumes, have been masters of
other things than oratory it does not follow that these other
things belong to oratory. The most that can be said is that, to
attain eminence in oratory, one must have heard, seen, and read
much. Neither an orator’s knowledge of human nature nor his
use of this knowledge in speaking is scientific. Nor must the
orator be a lawyer any more than he must be an actor. Mastery
of law, of acting, of history, of other things, is, indeed, an
advantage; but it is not a necessity to oratory. If the orator
is to be, as Crassus has described him,[25] one who can speak
in ways adapted to persuade, he must sacrifice many other
studies in order to master his own proper art.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account