Contents - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

also aspire to do good. He argues that the best orator will, by virtue of this practical activity, be agreater man then the philosopher who, in his traditional detachment from the world, is not involved inreal life. In his Proemium Quintilian states:My aim, then, is the education of the perfect orator. The first essential for such a one is that heshould be a good man, and consequently we demand of him not merely the possession ofexceptional gifts of speech, but all the excellences of character as well…I will not admit thatthe principles of upright and honourable living should, as some have held, be regarded as thepeculiar concerns of the philosopher. The man who can really play his part as a citizen and iscapable of meeting the demands both of public and private business, the man who can guide astate by his counsels, give it a firm basis by his legislation and purge its vices by his decisionsas a judge is assuredly no other than the orator of our quest. (I Pr 9-10)The philosopher’s task is to explain and demonstrate how to live a life of virtue; and given thatthe pursuit of virtue is the wise man’s aim, he is considered, by definition, to be a virtuous character.But Quintilian points out that when orators are pleading their cases they are frequently compelled tospeak of virtues, and to expound on, and illustrate what they are. He recalls how philosophy andoratory used to be closely united before a split occurred after some orators turned to sophistry andabused their position, and philosophers turned away from the art of speaking well to focus more onphilosophy itself. 14 Quintilian follows Cicero in planning to re-unite these two disciplines observingthat, in fact, everyone discusses philosophical questions:Who, short of being an utter villain, does not speak of justice, equity, and virtue? Who (andeven common-country folk – rustics – are no exception) does not make some enquiry into thecauses of natural phenomena?’ (I Pr 16) 15Quintilian’s ideal orator will therefore have to be a ‘wise man’ (a philosopher). But he cannot just beblameless in his character (perfect in his morals); he must also be ‘a thorough master of the scienceand art of speaking’ (I Pr 18). Quintilian does not believe that this ideal has yet been achieved, andannounces that after he has discussed the education of the orator and the five ‘parts’ of oratory 16 hewill return to a description of his ideal orator in Book X.In concluding his introduction Quintilian emphasises a final point, ‘Without the help ofnature, (without natural gifts), all technical rules and precepts are useless’ (I Pr 26). The argument as towhether natural ability or skill is more important was discussed, at length, in all classical studies andQuintilian refers to it at several points. He asserts that nature can exist without art, but art cannot existwithout nature, and although nature is improved by art – and Quintilian stresses the necessity of a goodeducation – he still recognises that it is those with superior natural abilities who will make the bestorators. Quintilian’s whole study is built around a discussion of the relative importance of innate talentand acquired skill (Natura vs Ars). 17 His own discussion of phantasiae, is found in Book VI Section ii,14 Cicero, famously, blames Socrates for creating the rift between philosophy and rhetoric.15 This democratisation of the soul would not have been lost on Wordsworth.16 Invention, Arrangement, Eloquence (Style), Memory and Delivery17 Elaine Fantham has explored the ‘nature’ of this debate in ‘The Concepts of Nature and Human Nature inQuintilian’s Psychology and Theory of Instruction’. Rhetorica XIII No 2 (Spring 1995).226