Theophrastus says that the reading of poetry is of vast service to the
orator. Many, and with good reason, are of the same opinion, as from the
poets may be derived sprightliness in thought, sublimity in expression,
force and variety in sentiment, propriety and decorum in character,
together with that diversion for cheering and freshening minds which
have been for any time harassed by the drudgery of the bar.
Let it be remembered, however, that poets are not in all things to be
imitated by the orator, neither in the liberty of words, nor license of
figures. The whole of that study is calculated for ostentation. Its sole
aim is pleasure, and it invariably pursues it, by fictions of not only
what is false, but of some things that are incredible. It is sure, also,
of meeting with partizans to espouse its cause, because, since it is
bound down to a certain necessity of feet it can not always use proper
words, and being driven out of the straight road, must turn into byways
of speaking, and be compelled to change some words, and to lengthen,
shorten, transpose and divide them. As for orators, they must stand
their ground completely armed in the order of battle, and having to
fight for matters of the highest consequence, must think of nothing but
gaining the victory.
Still would I not have their armor appear squalid and covered with rust,
but retain rather a brightness that dismays, such as of polished steel,
striking both the mind and eyes with awe, and not the splendor of gold
and silver, a weak safeguard, indeed, and rather dangerous to the
bearer.
History, likewise, by its mild and grateful sap may afford kind
nutriment to an oratorical composition. Yet the orator should so read
history as to be convinced that most of its perfections ought to be
avoided by him. It nearly borders upon poetry, and may be held as a
poem, unrestrained by the laws of verse. Its object is to narrate, and
not to prove, and its whole business neither intends action nor
contention, but to transmit facts to posterity, and enhance the
reputation of its author.
In the reading of history there is another benefit, and indeed the
greatest, but one not relative to the present subject. This proceeds
from the knowledge of things and examples, which the orator ought to be
well versed in, so that not all his testimonies may be from the parties,
but many of them may be taken from antiquity, with which, through
history, he will be well acquainted; these testimonies being the more
powerful, as they are exempt from suspicion of prejudice and partiality.
I shall venture to say that there are few which have stood the test of
time, that may not be read with some profit by the judicious. Cicero
himself confesses that he received great help from old authors, who
were, indeed, very ingenious but were deficient in art. Before I speak
of the respective merit of authors, I must make, in a few words, some
general reflections on the diversity of taste in regard to matters of
eloquence. Some think that the ancients deserve to be read, believing
that they alone have distinguished themselves by natural eloquence and
that strength of language so becoming men. Others are captivated with
the flowery profusion of the orators of the present age, with their
delicate turns, and with all the blandishments they skilfully invent to
charm the ears of an ignorant multitude. Some choose to follow the plain
and direct way of speaking. Others take to be sound and truly Attic
whatever is close, neat, and departs but little from ordinary
conversation. Some are delighted with a more elevated, more impetuous,
and more fiery force of genius. Others, and not a few, like a smooth,
elegant, and polite manner. I shall speak of this difference in taste
more fully when I come to examine the style which may seem most proper
for the orator.