 Translator's introduction of On the Education of an Orator. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. On the Education of an Orator by Quintilian, translated by H.E. Butler. Introduction Marcus Fabius Quintilianus was, like Seneca, of Spanish origin, being born about 35 AD at Caliguris. His father was a rhetorician of some note, who practiced with success at Rome. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the young Quintilian was sent to Rome for his education. Among his teachers were the famous grammaticus Remius Palimen, and the no less distinguished rhetorician the Mishes offer. On completing his education, he seems to have returned to his native land to teach rhetoric there, for we next hear of him, as being brought to Rome in 68 AD by Galba, then governor of Hispania Tereconensis. At Rome, he met with great success as a teacher, and was the first rhetorician to set up a genuine public school and to receive a salary from the state. He continued to teach for 20 years, and had among his pupils the younger Pliny and the two sons of Domitilla, the sister of the mission. He was also a successful pleader in the courts, as we gather from more than one passage in his works. Late in life, he married and had two sons, but both wife and children pre-deceased him. He died full of honor, the possessor of wide lens and consular rank. The date of his death is unknown, but it was before 100 AD. He left behind him a treatise on the causes of the decadence of Roman oratory, the present work, and a speech in defense of a certain Niveus Arpinianus, who was accused of murdering his wife. These are the only works known to have been actually published by him, though others of his speeches had been taken down in shorthand and circulated against his will, while an excess of zeal on the part of his pupils resulted in the unauthorized publication of two series of lecture notes. The present work alone survives. The declamations which have come down to us under his name are spurious. Of his character, the Institutio Oratoria gives us the pleasantest impression, humane, kindly, and of a deeply affectionate nature. Gifted with a robust common sense and sound literary judgment, he may well have been the ideal schoolmaster. The fulsome references to Domitian are the only blemishes which mar this otherwise pleasing impression. And even here we must remember his great debt to the Flavian House and the genuine difficulty for a man in his position of avoiding the official style in speaking of the Emperor. As a stylist, though he is often difficult owing to compression and the epigrammatic turn which he gives his phrases, he is never affected or extravagant. He is still under the influence of the sound traditions of the Ciceroanian age, and his Latin is Silver Guild rather than Silver. His Institutio Oratoria, despite the fact that much of it is highly technical, has still much that is of interest today, even for those who care little for the history of rhetoric. Notably in the first book, his precepts as regards education have lasting value. They may not be strikingly original, but they are sound, humane, and admirably put. In the more technical portions of his work, he is unequal. The reader feels that he cares but little about the minute pedantics of rhetorical technique, and that he lacks method in his presentation of the varying views held by his predecessors. But once he is free of such minor details and touches on themes of real practical interest, he is a changed man. He is at times really eloquent and always vigorous in sound, while throughout the whole work he keeps the same ideal unswervingly before him. End of Translator's Introduction Letter and Preface of On the Education of an Orator by Quintilian, translated by H. E. Butler. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus to his friend Trifo, greeting. You have daily improtuned me with the request that I should at length take steps to publish the book On the Education of an Orator, which I dedicated to my friend Marcellus. For my own view was that it was not yet right for publication. As you know, I have spent little more than two years on its composition, during which time, moreover, I have been distracted by a multitude of other affairs. These two years have been devoted not so much to actual writing as to the research demanded by a task to which practically no limits can be set and to the reading of innumerable authors. Further, following the precept of Horace, who in his art of poetry deprecates hasty publication and urges the would-be author to withhold his work till nine long years have passed away, I propose to give them time and order that the ardor of creation might cool, and that I might revise them with all the consideration of a dispassionate reader. But, if there is such a demand for their publication as you assert, why then let us spread our canvas to the gale and offer up a fervent prayer to heaven as we put out to see. But remember, I rely on your loyal care to see that they reach the public in as correct a form as possible. Having at length, after twenty years devoted to the training of the young, obtained leisure for study, I was asked, by certain of my friends, to write something on the art of speaking. For a long time I resisted their entreaties, since I was well aware that some of the most distinguished Greek and Roman writers had bequeathed to posterity a number of works dealing with the subject, through the composition of which they had devoted the utmost care. This seemed to me to be an admirable excuse for my refusal, but served merely to increase their enthusiasm. They urged that previous writers on the subject had expressed different and at times contradictory opinions, between which it was very difficult to choose. They thought, therefore, that they were justified in imposing on me the task, if not of discovering original views, at least of passing definite judgment on those expressed by my predecessors. I was moved to complying, not so much because I felt confidence that I was equal to the task, as because I had a certain compunction about refusing. The subject proved more extensive than I had first imagined, but finally I volunteered to shoulder a task which was on a far larger scale than that which I was originally asked to undertake. I wished on the one hand to oblige my very good friends beyond their requests, and the necessity of treading where others had gone before. For almost all others who have written on the art of oratory have started with the assumption that their readers were perfect in all other branches of education, and that their own task was merely to put the finishing touches through their rhetorical training. This is due to the fact that they either despise the preliminary stages of education, or thought that they were not their concern, since the duties of the different branches of education are distinct from another, or else. And this is nearer the truth, because they had no hope of making a remunerative display of their talent in dealing with subjects, which, although necessary, are far from being showy. Just as in architecture, it is the supper structure and not the foundations which attract the eye. Eye, on the other hand, hold that the art of oratory includes all that is essential for the training of an orator, and that it is impossible to reach the summit in any subject unless we have first passed through all the elementary stages. I shall not, therefore, refuse to stoop to the consideration of those minor details, neglect of which may result in there being no opportunity for more important things, and propose to mold the studies of my orator from infancy on the assumption that his whole education has been entrusted to my charge. This work I dedicate to you, Marcella's Victorious. You have been the truest of friends to me, and you have shown a passionate enthusiasm for literature. But good as these reasons are, they are not the only reasons that lead me to regard you as especially worthy of such a pledge of our mutual affection. There is also the consideration that this book should prove of service in the education of your son, Jetta, who, young though he is, already shows clear promise of real talent. It has been my design to read my reader from the very cradle of speech through all the stages of education which can be of any service to our budding orator, till we have reached the very summit of the art. I have been all the more desirous of doing so, because two books on the art of rhetoric are at present circulating under my name, although never published by me or composed for such a purpose. One is a two-days lecture which was taken down by the boys who were my audience. The other consists of such notes as my good pupils succeeded in taking down from a course of lectures on a somewhat more extensive scale. I appreciate their kindness, but they showed an excess of enthusiasm and a certain lack of discretion in doing my utterances the honor of publication. Consequently, in the present work, although some passages remain the same, you will find many alterations and still more additions, while the whole theme will be treated with greater system and with as great perfection as lies within my power. My aim, then, is the education of the perfect orator. The first essential for such-and-one is that he should be a good man, and consequently we demand of him not merely the possession of exceptional gifts of speech, but of all the excellences of character as well. For I will not admit that the principles of upright and honorable living should, as some have held, be regarded as the peculiar concern of philosophy. The man who can really play his part as a citizen and is capable of meeting the demands both of public and private business, the man who can guide a state by his counsels, give it a firm basis by his legislation, and purge its vices by his decisions as a judge is assuredly no other than the orator of our quest. Wherefore, although I admit I shall make use of certain of the principles laid down in philosophical textbooks, I would insist that such principles have a just claim to form part of the subject matter of this work, and do actually belong to the art of oratory. I shall frequently be compelled to speak of such virtues as courage, justice, self-control. In fact, scarcely a case comes up in which some one of these virtues is not involved. Every one of them requires illustration, and consequently makes a demand on the imagination and eloquence of the pleader. I ask you then, can there be any doubt wherever imaginative power and amplitude of diction are required, the orator has a specially important part to play. These two branches of knowledge were, as Cicero has clearly shown, so closely united, not merely in theory, but in practice, that the same men were regarded as uniting the qualifications of orator and philosopher. Subsequently, the single branch of study split up into its component parts, and thanks to the indolence of its professors, was regarded as consisting of several distinct subjects. As soon as speaking became a means of livelihood, and the practice of making an evil use of the blessings of eloquence came into vogue, those who had a reputation for eloquence seized to study moral philosophy, and ethics, thus abandoned by the orators, became the prey of weaker intellects. As a consequence, certain persons, disdaining the toil of learning to speak well, returned to the task of forming character and establishing rules of life, and kept to themselves what is, if we must make a division, the better part of philosophy, but presumptuously laid claim to the sole possession of the title of philosopher, a distinction which neither the greatest generals nor the most famous statesmen and administrators have ever dared to claim for themselves, for they prefer the performance to the promise of great deeds. I am ready to admit that many of the old philosophers inculcated the most excellent principles and practiced what they preached, but in our own day, the name of philosopher has too often been the mask for the worst vices. For their attempt has not been to win the name of philosopher by virtue and the earnest search for wisdom. Instead, they have sought to disguise the depravity of their characters by the assumption of a stern and austere mihan, accompanied by the wearing of a garb differing from that of their fellow men. Now, as a matter of fact, we, all of us, frequently handle those themes which philosophy claims for its own. Who, short of being an utter villain, does not speak of justice, equity and virtue? Who, an even common country folk are no exception, does not make some inquiry into the causes of natural phenomena? As for the special uses and distinctions of words, they should be a subject of study common to all who give any thought to the meaning of language. But it is surely the orator who will have the greatest mastery of all such departments of knowledge and the greatest power to express it in words. And if ever he had reached perfection, there would be no need to go to the schools of philosophy for the precepts of virtue. As things stand, it is occasionally necessary to have recourse to those authors who have, as I said above, observed the better part of the art of oratory after its desertion by the orators and to demand back what is ours by right, not with a view to appropriating their discoveries, but to show them that they have appropriated what in truth belonged to others. Let our ideal orator then be such as to have a genuine title to the name of philosopher. It is not sufficient that he should be blameless in point of character, for I cannot agree with those who hold this opinion. He must also be a thorough master of the science and the art of speaking to an extent that perhaps no orator has yet attained. Still, we must nonetheless follow the ideal as was done by not a few of the ancients who, though they refused to admit that the perfect sage had yet been found, nonetheless handed down precepts of wisdom for the use of posterity. Perfect eloquence is assuredly a reality which is not beyond the reach of human intellect. Even if we fail to reach it, those whose aspirations are highest will attain to greater heights than those who abandon themselves to premature despair of ever reaching the goal and halt at the very foot of the ascent. I have therefore all the gesture claimed to indulgence if I refuse to pass by those minor details which are nonetheless essential to my task. My first book will be concerned with the education preliminary to the duties of the teacher of rhetoric. My second will deal with the rudiments of the schools of rhetoric and with problems connected with the essence of rhetoric itself. The next five will be concerned with invention in which I include arrangement. The four following will be assigned to eloquence, under which had I include memory and delivery. Finally, there will be one book in which our complete orator will be delineated. As far as my feeble powers permit, I shall discuss his character, the rules which should guide him in undertaking, studying and pleading cases, the style of his eloquence, the time at which he should cease to plead cases and the studies to which he should devote himself after such cessation. In the course of these discussions, I shall deal in its proper place with the method of teaching by which students will acquire not merely a knowledge of those things to which the name of art are restricted by certain theorists and will not only come to understand the laws of rhetoric, but will acquire that which will increase their powers of speech and nourish their eloquence. For as a rule, the result of the dry textbooks on the art of rhetoric is that by straining after excessive subtlety they impair and cripple all the nobler elements of style, exhaust the lifeblood of the imagination and leave but the bare bones, which, while it is right and necessary that they should exist and be bound each to each by their respective ligaments, require a covering of flesh as well. I shall therefore avoid the precedence set by the majority and shall not restrict myself to this narrow conception of my theme, but shall include in my twelve books a brief demonstration of everything which may seem likely to contribute to the education of an orator. For if I were to attempt to say all that might be said on the subject, the book would never be finished. There is, however, one point which I must emphasize before I begin, which is this. Without natural gifts, technical rules are useless. Consequently, the student who is devoid of talent will derive no more profit from this work than barren soil from a treatise on agriculture. There are, it is true, other natural aids, such as the possession of a good voice and robust lungs, sound health, powers of endurance and grace, and if these are possessed only to a moderate extent, they may be improved by methodical training. In some cases, however, these gifts are lacking to such an extent that their absence is fatal to all such advantages as talent and study can confer, while similarly they are of no profit in themselves unless cultivated by skillful teaching, persistent study, and continuous and extensive practice in writing, reading, and speaking. He will be more careful about the groundwork of his education. For there is absolutely no foundation for the complaint that but few men have the power to take in the knowledge that is imparted to them, and that the majority are so slow of understanding that education is a waste of time and labor. On the contrary, you will find that most are quick to reason and ready to learn. Reasoning comes as naturally to men as flying to birds, speed to horses, and ferocity to beasts of prey. Our minds are endowed by nature with such activity and sagacity that the soul is believed to proceed from heaven. Those who are dull and unteachable are as abnormal as prodigious births and monstrosities and are but few in number. A proof of what I say is to be found in the fact that boys commonly show promise of many accomplishments, and when such promise dies away as they grow up, this is plainly due not to the failure of natural gifts, but to lack of the requisite care. But it will be urged there are degrees of talent. Undoubtedly, I reply, and there will be a corresponding variation in actual accomplishment, but that there are any who gain nothing from education I absolutely deny. The man who shares this conviction must, as soon as he becomes a father, devote the utmost care to fostering the promise shown by the son whom he destines to become an orator. Above all, see that the child's nurse speaks correctly. The ideal, according to Chrysippus, will be that she should be a philosopher. Failing that, he desired that the best should be chosen as far as possible. No doubt, the most important point is that they should be of good character, but they should speak correctly as well. It is the nurse that the child first hears, and her words that he will first attempt to imitate. And we are, by nature, most gnashes of childish impressions, just as the flavor first absorbed by vessels when new persists, and the color imparted by dyes to the primitive whiteness of wool is indelible. Further, it is the worst impressions that are most durable. For, while what is good readily deteriorates, it will never turn vice into virtue. Do not, therefore, allow the boy to become accustomed, even in infancy, to a style of speech which he will subsequently have to unlearn. As regards parents, I should like to see them as highly educated as possible, and I do not restrict this remark to fathers alone. We are told that the eloquence of the Grechi owed much to their mother Cornelia, whose letters even today testify to the cultivation of her style. Lilia, the daughter of Gaius Lilius, is said to have reproduced the elegance of her father's language in her own speech, while the oration delivered before the triumphors by Hortensia, the daughter of Quintus Hortensias, is still red, and not merely as a compliment to her sex. And even those who have not had the fortune to receive a good education should not, for that reason, devote less care to their son's education, but should, on the contrary, show all the greater diligence in other matters where they can be of service to their children. As regards the boys in whose company our budding orator is to be brought up, I would repeat what I have said about nurses. As regards his pedagogy, I would urge that they should have had a thorough education, or if they have not, that they should be aware of the fact. There are none worse than those who, as soon as they have progressed beyond a knowledge of the alphabet, dilute themselves into the belief that they are the possessors of real knowledge, for they disdain to stoop to the drudgery of teaching, and conceiving that they have acquired a certain title to authority, a frequent source of vanity in such persons, become imperious or even brutal in instilling a thorough dose of their own folly. Their misconduct is no less prejudicial to morals. We are, for instance, told by diogenes of Babylon, that Leonidas, Alexander's pedagogus, infected his pupil with certain faults, which as a result of his education as a boy, clung to him, even in his mature years, when he had become the greatest of kings. If any of my readers regards me as somewhat exacting in my demands, I would ask him to reflect that it is no easy task to create an orator, even though his education be carried out under the most favorable circumstances, and that further and greater difficulties are still before us. For continuous application, the very best of teachers and a variety of exercises are necessary. Therefore, the rules which we lay down for the education of our pupil must be of the best. If anyone refuses to be guided by them, the fault will lie not with the method, but with the individual. Still, if it should prove impossible to secure the ideal nurse, the ideal companion, or the ideal pedagogus, I would insist that there should be one person at any rate attached to the boy who has some knowledge of speaking, and who will, if any incorrect expression should be used by nurse or pedagogus in the presence of the child under their charge, at once correct the error and prevent it from becoming a habit. But it must be clearly understood that this is only a remedy, and that the ideal course is that indicated above. I prefer that a boy should begin with Greek, because Latin, being in general used, will be picked up by him whether we will or know, while the fact that Latin learning is derived from Greek is a further reason for his being first introduced in the latter. I do not, however, desire that this principle should be so superstitiously observed that he should for long speak and learn only Greek, as is done in the majority of cases. Such a course gives rise to many folds of language and accent. The latter tends to acquire a foreign intonation, while the former, through a force of habit, becomes impregnated with Greek idioms which persist with extreme obstinacy even when we are speaking another tongue. The study of Latin ought, therefore, to follow at no great distance and in a short time proceed side by side with Greek. The result will be that, as soon as we begin to give equal attention to both languages, neither will prove a hindrance to the other. Some hold that boys should not be taught to read till they are seven years old, that being the earliest age at which they can derive profit from instruction and endure the strain of learning. Most of them attribute this view to Hesiod, at least such as lived before the time of Aristophanes the Gramerian, who was the first to deny that the hypotheque in which this opinion is expressed was the work of that poet. But other authorities, among them Eratosthenes, give the same advice. Those, however, who hold that a child's mind should not be allowed to lie fellow for a moment are wiser. Chrysippus, for instance, though he gives the nurses a three years reign, still holds the formation of the child's mind on the best principles to be a part of their duties. Why, again, since children are capable of moral training, should they not be capable of literary education? I am well aware that during the whole period of which I am speaking, we can expect scarcely the same amount of progress that one year will effect afterwards. Still, those who disagree with me seem in taking the line to spare the teacher rather than the pupil. What better occupation can a child have so soon as he is able to speak, and he must be kept occupied somehow or other? Or why should we despise the prophet to be derived before the age of seven, small though it be? For though the knowledge absorbed in the previous years may be but little, yet the boy will be learning something more advanced during that year in which he would otherwise have been occupied with something more elementary. Such progress, each successive year, is clear profit to the period of youth. Further, as regards the years which follow, I must emphasize the importance of learning what has to be learned in good time. Let us not, therefore, waste the earliest years. There's all the last excuse for this, since the elements of literary training are solely a question of memory, which not only exists even in small children, but is specially retentive at that age. I am not, however, so blind to differences of age as to think that the very young should be forced on prematurely or given real work to do. Above all things, we must take care that the child, who is not yet old enough to love his studies, does not come to hate them and dread the bitterness which he has once tasted even when the years of infancy are left behind. His studies must be made an amusement. He must be questioned and praised and taught to rejoice when he has done well. Sometimes too, when he refuses instruction, it should be given to some other to excite his envy. At times also, he must be engaged in competition and should be allowed to believe himself successful more often than not, while he should be encouraged to do his best by such rewards as may appeal to his standard years. These instructions may seem but trivialities in view of the fact that I am professing to describe the education of an auditor. But studies, like men, have their infancy, and as the training of the body, which is destined to grow to the fullness of strength, begins while the child is in his cradle and at his mother's breast, so even the man, who is destined to rise to the heights of eloquence, was once a squalling babe, tried to speak in stammering accents and was puzzled by the shapes of letters. Nor does the fact that capacity for learning is inadequate prove that it is not necessary to learn anything. No one blames a father because he thinks that such details should on no account be neglected in the case of his own son. Why then should he be criticized, who sets down for the benefit of the public, what he would be right to put into practice in his own house? There is this further reason why he should not be blamed. Small children are better adapted for taking in small things, and just as the body can only be trained to certain flexions of the limbs while it is young and subtle, so the acquisition of strength makes the mind offer greater resistance to the acquisition of most subjects of knowledge. Would Philip of Macedon have wished that his son Alexander should be taught the rudiments of letters by Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of that age, or would the latter have undertaken the task if he had not thought that even the earliest instruction is best given by the most perfect teacher and has real reference to the whole of education? Let us assume, therefore, that Alexander has been confided to our charge, and that the infant placed in our lab deserves no less attention than he, though for that matter every man's child deserves equal attention. Would you be ashamed, even in teaching him the alphabet, to point out some brief rules for his education? At any rate, I am not satisfied with the course, which I note is usually adopted, of teaching small children the names and order of the letters before their shapes. Such a practice makes them slow to recognize the letters, since they do not pay attention to the actual shape, referring to be guided by what they have already learned by rote. It is for this reason that teachers, when they think they have sufficiently familiarized their young pupils with the letters written in their usual order, reverse that order or rearrange it in every kind of combination until they learn to know the letters from their appearance and not from the order in which they occur. It will be best, therefore, for children to begin by learning their appearance and names, just as they do with men. The method, however, to which we have objected in teaching the alphabet is unobjectionable when applied to syllables. I quite approve, on the other hand, of a practice which has been devised to stimulate children to learn by giving them ivory letters to play with, as I do of anything else that may be days to delight the very young, the sight, handling, and naming of which is a pleasure. As soon as the child has begun to know the shapes of the various letters, it will be no bad thing to have them cut as accurately as possible upon a board, so that the pen may be guided along the grooves. Thus mistakes such as occur with walks' tablets will be rendered impossible, for the pen will be confined between the edges of the letters and will be prevented from going astray. Further, by increasing the frequency and speed with which they follow these fixed outlines, we shall give steadiness to the fingers, and there will be no need to guide the child's hand with our own. The art of writing well and quickly is not unimportant for our purpose, though it is generally disregarded by persons of quality. Writing is of the utmost importance in the study which we have under consideration, and by its means alone can true and deeply rooted proficiency be obtained. But a sluggish pen delays our thoughts, while an unformed and illiterate hand cannot be deciphered, a circumstance which necessitates another worrisome task, namely the dictation of what we have written to a copyist. We shall therefore, at all times and in all places, and above all when we are writing private letters to our friends, find a gratification in the thought that we have not neglected even this accomplishment. As regard syllables, no shortcut is possible, they must all be learned, and there is no good in putting off learning the most difficult. This is the general practice, but the sole result is bad spelling. Further, we must beware of placing a blind confidence in a child's memory. It is better to repeat syllables and impress them on the memory, and when he is reading, not to press him to read continuously or with greater speed, unless indeed the clear and obvious sequence of letters can suggest itself without its being necessary for the child to stop to think. The syllables once learned, let him begin to construct words with them and sentences with the words. You will hardly believe how much reading is delayed by undue haste. If the child attempts more than his powers allow, the inevitable result is hesitation, interruption and repetition, and the mistakes which he makes merely lead him to lose confidence in what he already knows. Reading must therefore first be sure, then connected, while it must be kept slow for a considerable time until practice brings speed unaccompanied by error. For to look to the right, which is regularly taught, and to look ahead depends not so much on precept as on practice, since it is necessary to keep the eyes on what follows while reading out what precedes, with the resulting difficulty that the attention of the mind must be divided, the eyes and voice being differently engaged. It will be found worthwhile when the boy begins to write out words in accordance with the usual practice to see that he does not waste his labour in writing out common words of everyday occurrence. He can readily learn the explanations or glosses, as the Greeks call them, of the more obscure words by the way and, while he is still engaged on first rudiments, acquire what would otherwise demand special time to be devoted to it. And as we are still discussing minor details, I would urge that the lines which he set to copy should not express thoughts of no significance, but convey some sound moral lesson. He will remember such aphorisms even when he is an old man, and the impression made upon his unformed mind will contribute to the formation of his character. He may also be entertained by learning the sayings of famous men and above all selections from the poets, poetry being more attractive to children. For memory is most necessary to an orator, as I shall point out in its proper place, and there is nothing like practice for strengthening and developing it. And at the tender age of which we are now speaking, when originality is impossible, memory is almost the only faculty which can be developed by the teacher. It will be worthwhile, by way of improving the child's pronunciation and distinctness of utterance, to make him rattle off a selection of names and lines of studied difficulty. They should be formed of a number of syllables which go ill together, and should be harsh and rubbed in sound. The Greeks call them gads. This sounds a trifling matter, but its omission will result in numerous faults of pronunciation, which, unless removed in early years, will become a perverse and incurable habit and persist through life. For the boy to grow up, little by little, to leave the nursery and tackle his studies in good earnest. This, therefore, is the place to discuss the question as to whether it is better to have him educated privately at home or hand him over to some large school and those whom I may call public instructors. The latter course has, I know, won the approval of most eminent authorities and of those who have formed the national character of the most famous states. It would, however, be folly to shut our eyes to the fact that there are some who disagree with this preference for public education, owing to a certain prejudice in favor of private tuition. These persons seem to be guided in the main by two principles. In the interests of morality, they would avoid the society of a number of human beings at an age that is especially liable to acquire serious faults. I only wish I could deny the truth of the view that such education has often been the cause of the most discreditable actions. Secondly, they hold that whoever is to be the boy's teacher, he will devote his time more generously to one pupil than if he has to divide it among several. The first reason certainly deserves serious consideration. If it were proved that schools, while advantageous to study, are prejudicial to morality, I should give my vote for virtuous living in preference to even supreme excellence of speaking. But in my opinion, the two are inseparable. I hold that no one can be a true orator, unless he is also a good man, and even if he could be, I would not have it so. I will therefore deal with this point first. It is held that schools corrupt the morals. It is true that this is sometimes the case. But morals may be corrupted at home as well. There are numerous instances of both, as there are also of the preservation of a good reputation under either circumstance. The nature of the individual boy and the care devoted to his education make all the difference. Given a natural bent toward evil or negligence in developing and watching over modest behavior in early years, privacy will provide equal opportunity for sin. The teacher employed at home may be of bad character, and there is just as much danger in associating with bad slaves as there is with immodest companions of good birth. On the other hand, if the natural bent be towards virtue and parents are not afflicted with a blind and torpid indifference, it is possible to choose a teacher of the highest character and those who are wise will make this their first object, to adopt a method of education of the strictest kind, and at the same time to attach some respectable man or faithful freedman to their son as his friend and guardian, that his unfailing companionship may improve the character even of those who gave rise to apprehension. Yet how easy were the remedy for such fears were that we did not too often ruin our children's character ourselves. We spoiled them from the cradle. That soft upbringing, which we call kindness, saps, all the sinus, both of mind and body. If the child crawls on purple, what will he not desire when he comes to manhood? Before he can talk, he can distinguish scarlet and cries for the very best brand of purple. We train their palates before we teach their lips to speak. They grow up in litters. If they set foot to earth, they are supported by the hands of attendants on either side. We rejoice if they say something over-free, and words which we should not tolerate from the lips even of an Alexandrian page are greeted with laughter and a kiss. We have no right to be surprised. It was we that taught them. They hear us use such words. They see our mistresses and minions. Every dinner party is loud with foul songs, and things are presented to their eyes of which we should blush to speak. Hence springs habit, and habit in time becomes second nature. The poor children learn these things before they know them to be wrong. They become luxurious and effeminate, and far from acquiring such vices at schools introduce them themselves. I now turn to the objection that one master can give more attention to one pupil. In the first place, there is nothing to prevent the principle of one teacher, one boy, being combined with school education. And even if such a combination should prove impossible, I should still prefer the broad daylight of a respectable school to the solitude and obscurity of a private education. For all the best teachers pride themselves on having a large number of pupils and think themselves worthy of a bigger audience. On the other hand, in the case of inferior teachers, a consciousness of their own defects not seldom reconciles them to being attached to a single pupil and playing the part, for it amounts to little more of a mere pedagogus. But let us assume that influence, money or friendship succeed in securing a paragon of learning to reach the boy at home. Will he be able to devote the whole day to one pupil? Or can we demand such continuous attention on the part of the learner? The mind is as easily tired as the eye if given no relaxation. Moreover, by far the larger proportion of the learner's time ought to be devoted to private study. The teacher does not stand over him while he is writing or thinking or learning by heart. While he is so occupied, the intervention of anyone be he who he may is a hindrance. Further, not all reading requires to be first read aloud or interpreted by a master. If it did, how would the boy ever become acquainted with all the authors required of him? A small time only is required to give purpose and direction to the day's work, and consequently individual instruction can be given to more than one pupil. There are, moreover, a large number of subjects in which it is desirable that instruction should be given to all the pupils simultaneously. I say nothing of the analysis and declamations of the professors of rhetoric. In such cases, there's no limits to the number of the audience as each individual pupil will in any case receive full value. The voice of a lecturer is not like a dinner which will only suffice for a limited number. It is like the sun which distributes the same quantity of light and heat to all of us. So too with the teacher of literature. Whether he speak of style or expound difficult passages, explain stories or paraphrase poems, everyone who hears him will profit by his teaching. But it will be urged a large class is unsuitable for the correction of faults or for explanation. It may be inconvenient, one cannot hold for absolute perfection, but I shall shortly contrast the inconvenience with the obvious advantages. Still, I do not wish a boy to be sent where he will be neglected. But a good teacher will not burden himself with a larger number of pupils than he can manage. And it is further of the very first importance that he should be unfriendly and intimate terms with us and make his teaching not a duty, but a labor of love. Then there will never be any question of being swamped by the number of our fellow learners. Moreover, any teacher who has the least tincture of literary culture will devote special attention to any boy who shows signs of industry and talent. For such a pupil will be down to his own credit. But even if large schools are to be avoided, a proposition from which I must descend lies be due to the excellence of the teacher, it does not follow that all schools are to be avoided. It is one thing to avoid them, another to select the best. Having refuted these objections, let me now explain my own views. It is above all things necessary that our future orator who will have to live in the utmost publicity and in the broad daylight of public life should become accustomed from his childhood to move in society without fear and habituated to a life far removed from that of the pale student, the solitary and recluse. His mind requires constant stimulus and excitement, whereas retirement such as has just been mentioned induces languor and the mind becomes mildewed like things that are left in the dark or else flies to the opposite extreme and becomes puffed up with empty conceit for he who has no standard of comparison by which to judge his own powers will necessarily rate them too high. Again, when the fruits of his study have to be displayed to the public gaze, our recluse is blinded by the sun's glare and finds everything new and unfamiliar for though he has learned what is required to be done in public, his learning is but the theory of a hermit. I say nothing of friendships which endure unbroken to old age having acquired the binding force of a sacred duty for initiation in the same studies has all the sanctity of initiation in the same mysteries of religion. And where shall he acquire that instinct which we call common feeling if he secludes himself from that intercourse which is natural, not merely to mankind but even to dumb animals? Further, at home he can only learn what is taught to himself, while at school he will learn what is taught to others as well. He will hear many merits praised and many faults corrected every day. He will derive equal profit from hearing the indolence of a comrade rebuked or his industry commended. Such praise will incite him to emulation. He will think it a disgrace to be outdone by his contemporaries and a distinction to surpass his seniors. Such incentives provide a valuable stimulus and though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues. I remember that my own masters had a practice which was not without advantages. Having distributed the boys in classes they made the order in which they were to speak depend on their ability so that the boy who had made most progress in his studies had the privilege of declaiming first. The performances on these occasions were criticized. To win commendation was a tremendous honor but the prize most eagerly coveted was to be the leader of the class. Such a position was not permanent. Once a month the defeated competitors were given a fresh opportunity of competing for the prize. Consequently success did not lead the victor to relax his efforts while the vexation caused by defeat served as an incentive to wipe out the disgrace. I will venture to assert that to the best of my memory this practice did more to kindle our oratorical ambitions than all the exhortations of our instructors the watchfulness of our pedagogy and the prayers of our parents. Further, while emulation promotes progress in the more advanced pupils beginners who are still of tender years derive greater pleasure from imitating their comrades than their masters just because it is easier. For children still in the elementary stages of education can scarce their hope to reach that complete eloquence which they understand to be their goal. Their ambition will not soar so high but they will imitate the vine which has to grasp the lower branches of the tree on which it is trained before it can reach the topmost bowels. So true is this that it is the master's duty as well if he is engaged on the task of training unformed minds and prefers practical utility to a more ambitious program not to burden his pupils at once with tasks to which their strength is unequal but to curb his energies and refrain from talking over the heads of his audience. Vessels with narrow mouths will not receive liquids if too much be poured into them at a time but are easily filled if the liquid is admitted in a gentle stream or it may be drop by drop. Similarly, you must consider how much a child's mind is capable of receiving. The things which are beyond their grasp will not enter their minds which have not opened out sufficiently to take them in. It is a good thing therefore that a boy should have companions whom he will desire first to imitate and then to surpass. Thus he will be led to aspire to higher achievement. I would add that the instructors themselves cannot develop the same intelligence and energy before a single listener as they can when inspired by the presence of a numerous audience. For eloquence depends in the main on the state of the mind which must be moved, conceive images and adapt itself to suit the nature of the subject which is the theme of speech. Further, the loftier and the more elevated the mind, the more powerful will be the forces which move it. Consequently, praise gives it growth and effort increase and the thought that it is doing something great fills it with joy. The duty of stooping to expand that power of speaking which has been acquired at the cost of such effort in an audience of one gives rise to a silent feeling of disdain and the teacher is ashamed to raise his voice above the ordinary conversational level. Imagine the air of a disclaimer or the voice of an orator, his gait, his deliver, the movements of his body, the fatigue of his exertions, all for the sake of one listener. Would he not seem little less than a lunatic? No. There would be no such thing as eloquence if we spoke only with one person at a time. The skillful teacher will make it his first care as soon as a boy is entrusted to him to ascertain his ability and character. The surest indication in a child is his power of memory. The characteristics of a good memory are twofold. It must be quick to take in and faithful to retain impressions of what it receives. The indication of next importance is the power of imitation for this is a sign that the child is teachable but he must imitate merely what is taught and must not, for example, mimic someone's gait or bearing or defects. For I have no hope that a child will turn out well who loves imitation merely for the purpose of raising a laugh. He who is really gifted will also above all else be good. For the rest, I regard slowness of intellect as preferable to actual badness but a good boy will be quite unlike the dullard and the sloth. My ideal pupil will absorb instruction with ease and will even ask some questions but he will follow rather than anticipate his teacher. Precocious intellects rarely produce sound fruit. By the precocious I mean those who perform small tasks with ease and thus, and boldened, proceed to display all their little accomplishments without being asked. But their accomplishments are only of the most obvious kind. They string words together and trot them out boldly and undeterred by the slightest sense of modesty. Their actual achievement is small but what they can do they perform with ease. They have no real power and what they have is but of shallow growth. It is as when we cast seed on the surface of the soil. It springs up too rapidly. The blade apes the loaded ear and yellow's ear harvests time but bears no grain. Such tricks pleases when we contrast them with the performer's age but progress soon stops and our admiration withers away. Such indications once noted the teacher must next consider what treatment is to be applied to the mind of his pupil. There are some boys who are slack unless pressed on. Others again are impatient of control. Some are amenable to fear while others are paralyzed by it. In some cases the mind requires continued application to form it and others this result is best obtained by rapid concentration. Give me the boy who is spurred on by praise delighted by success and ready to weep over failure. Such an one must be encouraged by appeals to his ambition. Rebuke will bite him to the quick. Honor will be a spur and there's no fear of his proving indolent. Still, all our pupils will require some relaxation not merely because there's nothing in this world that can stand continuous strain and even unthinking and inanimate objects are unable to maintain their strength unless given intervals of rest but because study depends on the good will of the student a quality that cannot be secured by compulsion. Consequently they will be restored and refreshed by a holiday they will bring greater energy to their learning and approach their work with greater spirit of a kind that will not submit to being driven. I approve of play in the young it is a sign of a lively disposition nor will you ever lead me to believe that a boy who is gloomy and in a continual state of depression is ever likely to show alertness of mind in his work. Lacking as he does the impulse most natural to boys of his age. Such relaxation must not however be unlimited otherwise the refusal to give a holiday will make boys hate their work while excessive indulgence will accustom them to idleness. There are moreover certain games which have an educational value for boys as for instance when they compete in posing each other with all kinds of questions which they ask turn and turn about games to reveal a character in the most natural way at least that is so if the teacher will bear in mind that there is no child so young as to be unable to learn to distinguish between right and wrong and that the character is best molded still guiltless of the seat and most susceptible to instruction for once a bad habit has become ingrained it is easier to break than bend. There must be no delay then in warning a boy that his actions must be unselfish honest, self-controlled and we must never forget the words of Virgil so strong is custom formed in early years. I disapprove of flogging although it is the regular custom and meets with the acquiescence of Chrysippus because in the first place it is a disgraceful form of punishment and fit only for slaves and is in any case an insult as you will realize if you imagine its inflection at a later age. Secondly, if a boy is so insensible to instruction that reproof is useless he will, like the worst type of slave merely become hardened to blows Finally, there will be absolutely no need of such punishment if the master is a thorough disciplinarian as it is, we try to make amends for the negligence of the boy's pedagogus not by forcing him to do what is right but by punishing him for not doing what is right and though you may compel a child with blows what are you to do with him when he is a young man no longer amenable to such threats and confronted with tasks of far greater difficulty Moreover, when children are beaten pain or fear frequently have results of which it is not pleasant to speak and which are likely subsequently to be a source of shame a shame which unnerves and depresses the mind and leads the child to shun and loathe the light Further, if inadequate care is taken in the choices of respectable governors and instructors I blush to mention the shameful abuse which scoundrels sometimes make of their right to administer corporal punishment or the opportunity not infrequently offered to others by the fear thus caused in the victims I will not linger on this subject it is more than enough if I have made my meaning clear I will content myself with saying that children are helpless and easily victimized and that therefore no one should be given unlimited power over them I will now proceed to describe the subjects in which the boy must be trained if he is to become an orator and to indicate the age at which each should be commenced As soon as the boy has learned to read and write without difficulty it is the turn for the teacher of literature My words apply equally to Greek and Latin masters though I prefer that a start should be made with a Greek in either case the method is the same This profession may be most briefly considered under two heads the art of speaking correctly and the interpretation of the poets but there is more beneath the surface than meets the eye for the art of writing is combined with that of speaking and correct reading precedes interpretation while in each of these cases criticism has its work to perform The old school of teachers indeed carry their criticism so far that they were not content with obelising lines or rejecting books or titles they regarded as spurious as though they were expelling a supposititious child from the family circle but also drew up a canon of authors from which some were omitted altogether nor is it sufficient to have read the poets only every kind of writer must be carefully studied not nearly for the subject matter but for the vocabulary for words often acquire authority from their use by a particular author nor can such training be regarded as complete if it stops short of music for the teacher of literature has to speak of meter and rhythm nor again if he be ignorant of astronomy can he understand the poets for they, to mention no further points frequently give their indications of time by reference to the rising and setting of the stars Ignorance of philosophy is an equal drawback since there are numerous passages in almost every poem based on the intricate questions of natural philosophy while among the Greeks we have Empedocles and among our own poets Varo and Lucretius all of whom have expounded their philosophies and verse no small powers of eloquence also are required to enable the teacher to speak appropriately and fluently on the various points which have just been mentioned for this reason those who criticise the art of teaching literature as trivial and lacking in substance put themselves out of court unless the foundations of oratory are well and truly laid by the teaching of literature the superstructure will collapse the study of literature is a necessity for boys and the delight of old age the sweet companion of our privacy and the sole branch of study which has more solid substance than display the elementary stages of the teaching of literature must not therefore be despised as trivial it is of course an easy task to point out the difference between vowels and consonants and to subdivide the letter into semi vowels and nudes but as the pupil gradually approaches the inner shrine of the sacred place he will come to realise the intricacy of the subject and intricacy calculated not merely to sharpen the wits of a boy but to exercise even the most profound knowledge in their edition it is not every ear that can appreciate the correct sound of the different letters it is fully as hard as to distinguish the different notes in music but all teachers of literature will condescend to such minutiae they will discuss for instance whether certain necessary letters are absent from the alphabet not indeed when we are writing greek words for then we borrow two letters from them but in the case of genuine latin words for example in words such as serus and vulgus we feel the lack of the eolic the gamma there is also a sound intermediate between you and I for we do not pronounce optimum while in Heere the sound is neither exactly e nor i again there is a question whether certain letters are not superfluous not to mention the mark of the aspirate to which if it is required at all there should be a corresponding symbol to indicate the opposite for instance ka which is also used as an abbreviation for certain nouns and ku which those slanted slightly more by us resembles both in sound and shape the greek kopa now used by the greeks solely as a numerical sign there is also x the last letter of our alphabet which we could dispense with as easily as with psi again the teacher of literature will have to determine whether certain vowels have not been continentalized for instance yam and etiam are both spelled with an i was and tuos both with u vowels however when joined as vowels either make one long vowel compare the absolute method of indicating a long vowel by doubling it as the equivalent of the circumflex or a diphthong though some hold that even three vowels can form a single syllable this however is only possible if one or more assume the role of consonants he will also inquire why it is that there are two vowels which may be repeated while a consonant can only be followed and modified by a different consonant but i can follow i for konikit is derived from yakit so chudas u witness the modern spelling of serus and wulgus he should also know that Cicero prefer to write aio and mayiam with a double i in that case one of them is continentalized a boy must therefore learn both the peculiarities and the common characteristics of letters and must know how they are related to each other nor must he be surprised that skabilum is formed from skaminus or that a double-edged ax should be called bipenis from pinus sharp for i would not have him fall into the same error as those who supposing this word to be derived from bis and penai think that it is a metaphor for the wings of birds he must not be content with knowing only those changes introduced by conjugation and prefixes such as sekat sekwit kadit exkidit kalkat exkulkat to which might be added lotus from laware and again in lotus with a thousand others he must learn as well the changes that time has brought about even in nominatives for just as names like valesius and fusius have become valerius and furius so arbos, labos, guapos and clamos and laces were the original forms and the same letter s which has disappeared from these words has itself in some cases taken the place of another letter or our ancestors used to say mertare and pultare they also said fordeum and faidi using f instead of the aspirate aspirate as being a kindred letter for the greeks, unlike us aspirate f as Cicero bears witness in the profundanio where he laughs at a witness who is unable to pronounce the first letter of that name in some cases again we have substituted b for other letters as with burros, brugues and belena the same letter too has turned duelum into belum and as a result some have ventured to call the dueli beli what of stlocus and stlitis what of the connection between te and de a connection which makes it less surprising that on some of the older buildings of Rome and certain famous temples we should find the names Alexanter and Cassantra what again of the interchange of o and u of which examples may be found in récoba, nótrix, culchides and pulixena or to take purely latin words dederont and probaueront so to oduceus which the aeolian dialect turned into uluceus has been transformed by us into ulíxes similarly e in certain cases held the place that is now occupied by e as in menerua, leber, maghester and dioe victore in place of dioe victore it is sufficient for me to give a mere indication as regards these points for I am not teaching but merely advising those who have got to teach the next subject to which attention must be given is that of syllables of which I will speak briefly when I come to deal with orthography following this the teacher concerned will note the number and nature of the parts of speech although there is some dispute as to their number earlier writers, among them Aristotle himself and Theodectes hold that there are but three verbs, nouns and convictions their view was that the force of language resided in the verbs and the matter in the nouns for the one is what we speak the other that which we speak about while the duty of the convictions was to provide the link between the nouns and the verbs I know that conjunction is the term in general use but convention seems to me to be the more accurate translation of the Greek syndesmos gradually the number was increased by the philosophers more especially by the stokes articles were first added to the convictions then prepositions to nouns, appellations were added then the pronoun and finally the participle which holds a middle position between the verb and the noun to the verb itself was added the adverb our own language dispenses with the articles which are therefore distributed among the other parts of speech but interjections must be added to those already mentioned others however follow good authority in asserting that there are eight parts of speech among these I may mention Aristarchus and in our own day Palaman co-classified the vocable or appellation as a species of the genus noun those on the other hand who distinguish between the noun and the vocable make nine parts of speech but yet again there are some who differentiate between the vocable and the appellation saying that the vocable indicates concrete objects which can be seen and touched such as a house or bed while an appellation is something imperceptible either to sight or touch or to both such as the wind, heaven or virtue they added also the a-severation such as alas and the derivative such as faschiatin but of these classifications I do not approve whether we should translate prosegoria by vocable or appellation and whether it should be regarded as a species of noun I leave to the decision of such as desire to express their opinion it is a matter of no importance boys should begin by learning to decline nouns and conjugate verbs otherwise they will never be able to understand the next subject of study this admonition would be superfluous but for the fact that most teachers misled by a desire to show rapid progress begin with what should really come at the end their passion for displaying their pupils' talents in connection with the more imposing aspects of their work serves but to delay progress and their shortcut to knowledge merely lengthens the journey and yet a teacher who has acquired sufficient knowledge himself and is ready to teach what he has learned and such readiness is all too rare will not be content with stating that nouns have three genders or with mentioning those which are common to two or all three together nor again shall I be in a hurry to regard it as a proof of real diligence if he points out that there are irregular nouns of the kind called apocene by the Greeks in which one gender implies both or which in spite of being feminine or neuter in form indicates males or females, respectively as for instance uraina and glucerium a really keen and intelligent teacher will inquire into the original of names derived from physical characteristics such as rufus or longus whenever their meaning is obscure as in the case of sulla, burrus, galba, plautus, panza, scourus, and the like of names derived from accidents of birth such as agrippa, opiter, cordus, and posthumus and again of names given after birth such as opiscus then there are names such as cotta, scipio, linas, or seranos which originated in various ways it will also be found that names are frequently derived from races, places, and many other causes further, there are obsolete slave names such as markipur or publipur derived from the names of their owners the teacher must also inquire whether there is not room for a sixth case in Greek and a seventh in Latin for when I say wounded by a spear the case is not a true ablative in Latin nor a true dative in Greek again, if we turn to verbs who is so ill educated as not to be familiar with their various kinds and qualities their different persons and numbers such subjects belong to the elementary school and the rudiments of knowledge some, however, will find points undetermined by inflection somewhat perplexing for there are certain participles about which there may be doubts as to whether they are really nouns or verbs since their meaning varies with their use as for example lektum and sapiens while there are other verbs which resemble nouns such as fraudator and nutritor again, itur in antiquam silvam is a peculiar usage for there is no subject to serve as a starting point fletur is a similar example the passive may be used in different ways as for instance in panditur intere adomos omnipotentes olimpi and in totisusque adeoturbatur agris yet the third usage is found in urbs habitatur when we get phrases such as kampus curritur and marenavigatur pransus and potus have a meaning which does not correspond to their form and what of those verbs which are only partially conjugated some as for instance pedo even suffer an entire change in the perfect others are used only in the third person such as diket and piget while some resemble nouns tending to acquire an adverbial meaning for we say diktu and factu as we say noctu and diu since these words are participial though quite different from diktu and factu End of book 1 chapter 4