7. Praise of eloquence (1523) StA III, 44–62 & CR XI, 50–66
7. Praise of eloquence (1523)
StA III, 44–62 & CR XI, 50–66
Philip Melanchthon's oration on the topic that the arts of speaking are necessary for every kind of studies (or, praise of eloquence)
Just as Hesiod grieves that the mortals ignore how much comfort the mallow and asphodel can bring to human affairs [Works and Days 41], as if they were worthless herbs, we, too, are mourning – not for the first time – that the young ignore how much importance the arts of speaking have in preparing a perfect education. These do not promise as a pretence anything of that kind which the masses applaud, and furthermore, in their usefulness they easily surpass all human affairs. For there is nothing anywhere, in the entire totality of things, which yields greater comfort for mortals than that kind of art. But, since the young ignore their value, it happens that to most they seem mean and are judged least worthy of devoting one's energies to. It is excellent to be called a philosopher, wonderful to listen to a lawyer and these days nothing is more worthy of applause to the masses than a theological title; but the arts of speaking are not paid any regard, like those of the Megarites.1
For this reason, it seems appropriate to demonstrate on this occasion which facts should most commend their study to us. Here I wish for the word-power of Pericles, while I exert myself to call back to the right path the foolish young, who partly spurn elegant philology out of error – because they consider it unnecessary for achieving the other disciplines – and partly flee it out of sloth. For the nature of literature and equally other good things is such that they do not fall to anyone without the greatest toil. For it is known that what is beautiful is also difficult.
Although nothing, however hard, will deter from the study of these arts the person who is aware of how little trouble will bring such great gain, and who has kept in view the greatness of the advantages; if you do not know these, you cannot even realize how unsuccessfully you will be dealing with the other disciplines. Therefore hear with open minds which reasons have brought me here, and why I judge elegant literature clearly necessary for human affairs.
1 The Megarites were considered in antiquity to be exceptionally idle and worthless people and thus had no claims to respect at all: see Erasmus, Adages, II.i.79.
First, no one is so foolish as not to see that we need a fixed method of speaking, by which we can clearly explain the thoughts of our minds, whatever matter we need to discuss, in public or in private. Perhaps it would be ridiculous to discuss here how indispensable speech is for man. For those who despise scholarship do not quite want to appear to be depriving man of speech, but they spurn the cultivation of discourse. Therefore I shall indicate in a few words how important it is to have a method of speaking. Those who wish to weigh up the matter correctly should understand that it does not make such a difference whether you are simply mute or employ no art for speaking. For it is not feasible that you can express what you think as it should be understood unless you acquire and strengthen the ability to speak by art.
Wise men have learnt from usage that nothing is more difficult than to speak clearly and perspicuously about any topic. For, first, unless you support the power and weight of the words by your speech, what listener will understand your discourse? For since words are tried by use like coins, one must use those which one has received, which are free of obscurity because eloquent men have passed them on to following generations as if from hand to hand. In a past century, when each forged his own words, and foreign words mingled with Latin ones, in this manner a language became melted together which could not even be understood by the men of that age.
There is too much lacking for posterity to understand. For who would understand Scotus2 or another writer of the same kind in that age? Furthermore, the most practised could scarcely vouch that they would not somewhere violate the structure or the diction of the language; if these were corrupted, the speech would necessarily become more obscure. And how much do even the educated utter improperly? How often do they render their speech obscure by incongruous and silly metaphors? For who can bear Apuleius and his monkeys? But Apuleius speaks rightly when, portraying the ass, he wanted to bray rather than speak.
Finally, if you know the words and diction well enough, it is nevertheless very difficult to distribute them each in their place, to suppress some and render others conspicuous, to contract some briefly, and extend others more generously, to dissemble and conceal some, and expose others to view, so that they stand out and become conspicuous like lights among shadows.
2 Johannes Duns Scotus (c.1265–1308), a Franciscan philosopher, became a great scholastic authority and was dubbed the ‘subtle doctor’ for the subtle distinctions he drew in his commentaries.
For eloquence is something altogether greater than a noisy mass of words. But yet, I see the young fall into error; since they know neither the power nor the nature of eloquence, they do not consider it worth the effort of acquiring it with some zeal and struggle. They believe that it is praised by us little teachers in a vulgar manner, in the way in which the drugsellers praise their ointments. Nor are they convinced by the authority of the best and most sagacious men, who, with one voice, summon the young with a universal trumpet-call. How miserable is the condition of men when the better a thing is, the further it recedes from our sight and the less it is recognised. And I do not doubt that if the merit of eloquence could be seen by the eyes, it would rouse wonderful love for it, as it is said. But since the young live by chance and not by reason, they slide, with inconsiderate impulse, towards those things which are most praised among the masses.
Therefore, if someone is not an ignorant judge of things, he should first ponder in his mind that there is nothing that is of such wide-ranging usefulness as the advantage of speech. The whole community of men, the method oforganising life in public and in private, procuring everything by which we preserve life, and also all communication, are held together by speech.
Then he should persuade himself that no one will be able to speak suitably and clearly about anything unless he has shaped his speech by some art, by imitation of the best, and with great care, by that language which we use in public. Once he has noticed this, he will no doubt esteem nothing better and nothing more preferable than to learn the arts of speaking. Be it that others have to be helped by advice, or that they have to be taught, or be it that some dogma is to be defended or that one needs to speak about fair and good laws and equality, you will not achieve any more than mute people do on a stage, unless you bring to it a speech worked out with art, which places obscure things in the light, so to speak.
I know that there are those who separate elegance from the method of speaking correctly, and believe that it does not matter – as long as they declare the intent – what kind of speech they use. If they looked at the matter more closely, they would judge that by no means is an assumed3 and superfluous pretence needed by the teachers of eloquence. The very purity and fundamental aspect of speech is elegance; if you do not preserve it, you will speak in a way that is impure and not beautiful, as well as
3 Reading ascitum for asciticium.
inappropriate, obscure and foolish. In shaping bodies there is elegance only when all the members agree among themselves in the right proportion, and, if you make anything otherwise, it becomes monstrous. In just the same way, if you spoil the genuine form of a speech by a new arrangement you make it simply monstrous and silly. In a letter in which he defends the barbaric writers of philosophy, Pico – joking, I believe – separates elegance from the method of speaking correctly, in an improbable (adoxoi) argument, and reckons that things can be explained in any kind of speech.4 Indeed, I am not at all angry with him, who no more defends barbarism than Favorinus praised fever. I am astonished that there are those whom such trifling subtleties convince in earnest that it does not matter how we speak. Does the painter imitate the body correctly if he guides his brush without any method, and if his hand is moved at random and the lines are not drawn with art? In the same way you will not put the sentiment of your mind in front of the others'eyes unless you use appropriate and distinct words, a fitting arrangement of words and the right order of sentences. For, just as we represent bodies by colours, we represent the sentiment of our mind by speech. Therefore it is necessary for one who speaks to conceive a certain image through art, which marks out the faces – so to speak – of the sentences against each other.
It is a scourge, when someone shows a roundabout path to one who does not know the way; and how often do those who lack the care for speaking correctly not lead the reader away from the path? How often are they not deceived by the misuse of one word? Repeatedly in philosophy and in the Holy Scriptures solecisms are inflicted upon our translators. For who has ever understood Paul's sentence to the Corinthians, where those crickets,5 the despisers of elegance, have translated: ‘in front of many persons’?6 [2 Corinthians I:II]. What storm carries away Augustine, so that he does not keep to the argument in explaining what is in John:
4 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) wrote a defence of the scholastics after Ermolao Barbaro (1454–93) had criticised them for their lack of eloquence. Another defence of eloquence ‘on behalf of Barbaro’was printed and circulated under Melanchthon's name, but it is now shown to be the work of a student, Franz Burchard: see Erika Rummel, ‘Epistola Hermolai nova ac subditicia: a Declamation Falsely Ascribed to Philip Melanchthon’, Archiv fÜr Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992), 302–5.
5 ‘Grylli’ or crickets are figures painted in absurd costumes: see Pliny, Natural History, xxxv.xxxvii. 114.
6 The exact meaning of the phrase in the Vulgate, ‘ex multis facierum personis’, was frequently disputed. Melanchthon understood it to mean ‘by the means of many persons’who give thanks to God for various different reasons: see Melanchthon, Commentary an Corinthians, CR XV, cols. 1206f.
‘that I said unto you from the beginning’ (tēn archeēn, ho kai lalō hymin)? [John 8:25].7
There are countless examples of that kind, where barbarisms deceived even the fairly educated. Indeed, you will not satisfy the reader by just any kind of speech, but the ability has to be acquired by care and zeal, by which you can put the sentiment of your mind clearly before the gaze of others, and state suitably everything that the matter requires, for that is to speak elegantly.
Therefore, let us rather administer hellebore8 to those who disdain the beauty of speech, who are strangers to human common sense to such an extent that they do not even understand what it means to speak. It was necessity that brought forth elegance, because everything that is barbarous is undetermined, and because what is illustrated by oratorical embellishments is understood more clearly. [Marcus] Fabius [Quintilianus] wrote that rhetorical figures are employed for that purpose, and he thinks that it is never correct to divide true appearance from usefulness [Education of the Orator, VIII.3. II]. In the sacred writings – to leave out the secular ones – what, I ask you, do you lack in rhetorical figures? I believe that the prophets would not have used them if they had judged that they contributed nothing to the matter.
You can see for what reason I commend the study of eloquence to you – because we can neither explain what we ourselves want, nor understand the surviving writings that have been excellently written by our ancestors, unless we have thoroughly studied a fixed rule for speaking. For my part, I do not see how there could be others who wish neither to explain what they think, nor to understand what is excellently said. Therefore, even if eloquence has neither dignity nor grace, it is nevertheless important, in order that we do not, as they say, use fire, air or water in several places. For how would human affairs endure, if eloquence deserted the defence of the sacred and secular laws, if speech that can be understood were not employed in public and private counsels, or if exploits could not be transmitted to later generations by any writings? What remnant of humanity
7 The interpretation of the word ‘principium’ (tēn archēn) had been problematic in this passage: medieval tradition took it to be nominative, which was known to Augustine as impossible, who took it as accusative: see Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1.10 and The Gospel of St John, 38.11. Erasmus followed Chrysostom in taking it as adverbial, but Melanchthon followed Nonnos in translating it as ‘plainly’: see Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries (Geneva, 1987), p. 129.
8 From antiquity, hellebore was considered a strong purgative effective for treating mental disorders: see Erasmus, Adages, I.viii.51.
would remain in such a state? Furthermore, how little different from that was the earlier age, when hardly anybody still understood the language of the sacred books, and the sacred laws were daily fixed and re-fixed by the judgement of stupid sophists?
The exploits of those times lie buried in eternal darkness, for there was no one who could bring them to the light of literature. All subjects were rendered so obscure by the style of speaking that not even the very teachers who taught them had sufficient knowledge. They fought among themselves about the philosopher's figures of speech, as if blindfolded9 by darkness, and none of them were understood clearly even by their followers. That man said rightly: ‘Anacharsis speaks incorrectly among the Athenians, the Athenians among the Scythians. (Anacharsin par' Athēnaiois soloikisin, Athēnaious de para Skythais.)’10 They spoke incorrectly in their own homecountry, and they mixed in their individual dialect with astonishing liberty. The laws were a pleasure to them, not otherwise than to Heraclitus, but they spread darkness over the rest of the mortals.
Since it is already very clear how much the contempt of eloquence has brought about for us, why do we not abominate barbarism like a most harmful plague? Why do we not hiss it out of the schools by general consent? Why do we begrudge ourselves eloquence for so long, when the sun sees nothing better and nothing greater in all the lands?
So far we have been teaching that necessity compels us to pursue and preserve a fixed method of speaking; if anyone is little moved by these things, the gods would give donkey's ears to him more justly than to Midas. To this let us add the not despicable reward of the study of eloquence, because minds are roused and educated by the use of the arts by which eloquence is comprised, so that they discern more sagaciously all human affairs, and the shadow does not follow the body more closely than eloquence accompanies sagacity. As yet I speak of human matters, later I shall speak about sacred matters. Our ancestors saw that those two – the knowledge of speaking well and the mind's judgement – are connected by nature. Therefore they also said that the speech of one who is not foolish is the displayed thought of the mind. And the poet Homer attributed eloquence and sagacity to the same persons. Leaving aside the others, to Ulysses, whose speech he compares to the snows of winter [Iliad III.222], he attributed both
9 Andabata are those who enter a battle with their eyes closed or blindfolded: see Erasmus, Adages, I.iv.33.
10 Letters of Anacharsis, I. To the Athenians. Aldus Manutius published an edition of this in 1499.
in one little verse, when he said: ‘In you both the form of your words and your intelligence are excellent.’ (Soi d'eni men morphē epeēn, eni de phrenes esthlai [Odyssey XI. 367].) And I do not restrain myself from recounting what was also expressed in Latin by some erudite man: ‘You have a strong mind, and together with it the charm of fluent words.’Oh, what a divine sentence that is much more worthy of being carefully implanted in the hearts of the young than several Delphic decrees! For what else did the excellent old man [Homer] see than that sagacity and eloquence are linked together to such an extent that they cannot be torn asunder for any reason? If only all young men considered that little verse set before them, whither they may direct all their studies and considerations, as if at a target, and think that they have to direct all work, care, industry, thought and also intellect towards acquiring these arts. Without doubt Homer mentioned them for the reason that he wanted them to appear – as they are – the most beautiful and the most useful of all human matters.
What do you believe was on the mind of the ancient Romans that they called the arts of speaking humanity? They judged that, indisputably, by the study of these disciplines not only was the tongue refined, but also the wildness and barbarity of people's minds was amended. For, just as by training many strip off their rustic nature, the intellect is rendered mild and tamed.
There are two reasons for which the mind's judgement is sharpened by the study of speaking. The first is that those who bestow care on these arts need to compare themselves to the examples of such writers as have achieved the highest sagacity by habit of doing and dealing with the greatest things. By contact with them it happens that the readers acquire something of their judgement, just as those who walk about in the sun become tanned. It is customary to set before young minds an example of speaking and thinking in the right way, from which they should learn the power of words, the structure of speech and the figures of arrangement. For imitation assists the method of speaking as well as the other arts. For it is not likely that so much beauty and grace could have been applied to the art of painting by Apelles, if those who first painted paintings of one colour (monochrōmata) and then also oblique images (katagrapha) had not much earlier demonstrated the method of shaping the strokes. In the same way a fixed method and form (kai idea) of speaking and judging is to be taken in from the best writers, which you can follow, whatever matter you need to discuss.
Therefore, those who have in their hands the work of eloquent writers should reflect on what it is most seemly to admire, praise and imitate in any one of them. The first whom the young are encouraged to get to know are the poets and the historians. Even those who summon them only for pleasure, like women cithara-players at banquets, do not greatly harm the appraisal of those most excellent men. For they wanted11 to be useful, and excellent things are a great delight to worthy minds [Cf. Horace, Art of Poetry 333]. So one needs to seek to acquire the form of speech from them, and one also needs to observe how they usually judged on general things.
I often laugh about the crowd of Greek grammarians who relate Homer's entire song to physiology, and whom it pleases wonderfully when, by a new metamorphosis, as charming jokers they turn Jupiter into ether and Juno into air – things that Homer would not ever have dreamt of, not even in a fever. How much more satisfactory would it have been to show the things that he wanted readers to admire in particular, that is, his propriety and clarity in arranging the management (oikonomia) of the song, when he musters various counsels and various happenings in admirable order, when he adapts suitable opportunities to new events; how great is his solicitude to preserve decorum; how great also is the abundance and variety of words and figures of speech in those places, where he wants to engage the reader? You see how the description of the mutiny in the second book of the Iliad is not in the least feeble or spiritless [Iliad II. 101ff.]. Good God, how perspicaciously and how weightily does he treat the opportunity for the agitation, and the anger of the crowd, and the mutinous speeches of some, which, as they say, poured cold water on the crowd! And the character of Thersites, the evidence of his character, and his appearance! Also the very weighty speeches of the two who calmed the minds of the crowd; of those, that of Ulysses is the more violent, and that of Nestor the gentler speech. You would not easily find a more complete original of speaking correctly, all of whose elegance and virtues should be studied especially closely by those who would attempt to imitate it and express it in writing. For beware of thinking that Homer is simply called orator by M[arcus] Cicero fortuitously [Brutus 10.40], and that Fabius [Quintilian, Education of the Orator X.I.46f.] wrote without consideration that this poet excelled in all rhetorical virtues. What play has presented human affairs better than Homer's song, so that it is impossible that we be not touched again and again by admiration of the subject-matter when we contemplate his style? Furthermore, there
11 Reading voluerunt for voluere.
are examples of manners to be seen: the affection between the princes and the people; various counsels of exploits. If Arcesilaus had not thought that the mind was educated by these things, he would never have called Homer his lover. It seems to me that, among all that human intellect has achieved, there is no more sagacious work than Homer's. Nor would I hesitate to declare that, as Horace reckoned [Letters 1.2.3f.], Homer teaches better than Chrysippus or Crantor what is right and what is useful. I ask you, in what manner could the kings'rashness be indicated more agreeably than when he invents that Agamemnon, moved by a dream, leads the entire Greek army into danger [Iliad II. Iff.]? For it is well known that princes sometimes throw everything into confusion for trifling reasons. What is on Achilles's shield [Iliad XVIII.428ff.]? Did he not represent beautifully the elements of things and the brightest stars, and furthermore also their position and paths, from where later the philosophers, too, learnt the method of measuring the heavens [Iliad XVIII.485f.]? For he says that Arcton never sets, and that Orion lies in a region opposite to it; by that sentence he comprises a good part of astronomy. What shall be said of this, that in the same place he compares with each other the good of peace with the calamities of war, when he depicts two cities, one flourishing in peace, and the other devastated by war; how could he better have shown how hateful – as I believe – war is most destructive for all that is excellent? In the peaceful city, a wedding is taking place, judgements are carried out, law-cases are discussed, and the orators are admired. In the other, children are slaughtered, the laws are silent, the forum mute, and finally the destruction of all civil things is to be pitied. What, tell me, could have been more sagaciously thought out than that fiction?
It has not seemed right to touch upon too many passages in Homer here. I have only indicated those passages in order that I give confidence to the studious young that not only the mouth and the tongue, but also the heart, are shaped by the knowledge of the good writers. I believe that this was formerly the Greeks'purpose, for which they wanted Homer to be most intimately known to their men. For Solon and Peisistratus established by law that his song be arranged in order. For in that golden age the princes considered it their responsibility to warrant that some useful work be not lost. Nowadays there is nothing royal that is not also without refinement (amouson).12 It was established soon afterwards that the Homeric poem be sung in public in the theatres by rhapsodes,
12 Erasmus, Adages, II.vi. 18.
or Homeristai,13 so that the ears of the young might be constantly filled with sound by the divine song and that the rule of speaking and judging correctly might be always at hand.
Among the Romans, Virgil competed most successfully with Homer, and clearly, unless I am mistaken, equal praise is due to both, whether you look at the diction or at the weightiness of the sentences. What do the tragedians present, if not – with many examples – the habits and fates of tyrants? And what is comedy, if not a mirror of private life? Fabius [Quintilianus] indicated how poetry could serve students in everything [Education of the Orator X.I.27]. I see that it furnishes an abundance of figures to our speech, and that the mind is educated as well as delighted by their variety. Demosthenes believed that judgement was shaped and the faculty of speech increased by history, when he familiarised himself with Thucydides to such an extent that he copied his works eight times. Cicero loved Xenophon, too [On Divination I.xxiv. 52]. And since universal history is some kind of state (politeia), it represents various forms of establishing a state. For, not to mention anything else here, what is more admirable than the comparison of states (tōn politeiōn) in Herodotus, where some Persian satraps approve of democracy (demarchian), others of oligarchy (oligarchian) and others of monarchy (monarchian) [Herodotus III.80ff.]? In that passage you see that that most serious writer painted all diseases and vices of cities as if in a picture. In truth, no one is so ignorant as not to notice that the histories are written with the intention that examples of all human duties be seen as if put in an elevated place. If these do not lead to educating and rousing the minds of mortals, why would it have been that Scipio felt that he had risen to virtue by contemplating the images of famous men?
When orators administer states, and when, engaged in trials, they discourse so much about fair and good laws, it is well known that they teach many useful things. For what topic of moral philosophy is there that Demosthenes or Cicero did not touch upon? No one has painted (ezōgraphese) the best state (politeian) as they did in their plots, when they attack violent and rebellious citizens with their pen as if with a sword, and when they defend the states against the hostile power by their advice. What could be devised about peace that is more popular and true than what Cicero said in the oration in which he advises against the agrarian law? [On Duties II.22.78.] What is more civil than the praise of the laws which was transcribed by the lawyer Aristogeiton (kat' Aristogeitonos) into
13 Rhapsodes are bards who made a living by reciting the poems of Homer.
his commentaries from the oration of Demosthenes? But where would it lead to weave a more extensive praise (enkōmion) of writers here? Rather, make the attempt yourselves: what each one preserves from the classics, with what clarity and grace he explains everything, and how sagaciously he assembles everything that pertains to his purpose. For unless you apply yourself to the imitation of them, you have to despair utterly of attaining the ability to speak and judge in the right way.
It remains for us to judge also the other reason – why we declared that the power of judgement is sharpened by the study of eloquence. This is the case because care for speaking well in itself makes the mind more vigorous, so that it perceives more correctly what is most fitting or profitable in whatever matter. For, just as we see that the vigour of the body is strengthened by exercise, so it cannot happen but that the minds of those grow dull who are not roused by any intellectual toil. No one doubts that the perusal of good writers is very profitable. In truth, unless you add to this the habit of writing and speaking you will be able neither to understand with sufficient incisiveness their opinion, nor to conceive in your mind the fixed rule for judging and deliberating. Therefore, in order to obtain the ability to speak and judge, nothing is as indispensable as the exercise of the pen. For what else did Afranius14 intend, when he claimed that Wisdom was the child of Habit, than that the mind is awakened and educated by the study of speaking and deliberating? Anaxagoras left a maxim worthy of the memory of posterity in the sentence that the hand is the cause of wisdom (Tēn cheira sopbias aitian einai) [Testimonies, fr. 102. 1], because he saw that all the arts are obtained by habit, and that the mind grows totally barren with leisure.
For just as we learn the mechanical arts by experience, and no one is so deranged as to be assured that he will be an Apelles as soon as he has a paint-brush in his hands, so the mind needs to be inured by much habit to direct itself more sharply towards everything. In the same way M[arcus] Cicero had such a high opinion of the pen that he wrote that it was the best and most excellent author and teacher [On the Orator I.xxxiii. 150], and he used to translate some things from Greek into Latin for leisure, prepare others anew, and declaim some of them. By this industry he both preserved the power and vigour of his intellect, and enriched his fluency. For so he says about himself in the Brutus – lest I appear to invent something at random. We,
14 Lucius Afranius (c. 150–120 BC) received qualified praise in Quintilian, The Education of an Orator, x.i. 100. Afranius' fragments were included in the Fragmenta poetarum (Paris, 1564).
too, did not desist from increasing with any kind of exercise, and mainly with the pen, that which was ours, however little it was. Demosthenes hid himself in a cave for some time in order to ponder an oration, and they say that he used to work by night most tenaciously, sacrifcing his enjoyment, and the author Plutarch used up the night with constant lanterns, until he reached his fiftieth year. These most sagacious men taught by their habit what could not be said clearly and appropriately by vulgar skills. And how few among our young men have decided to write a little verse in this whole decade? Many believe that it is a short road to obtaining erudition, if they hear and read as much as possible. In the same way, others run hither and thither every day, and crawl through all the schools, and listen to teachers here and there, admiring those whom they do not understand, listen to the lessons, write refutations of the commentaries in inch-high letters, and illuminate them in vermilion. Those commentators are in repute who protract the time as much as possible by dictating, and no-one would acquire a teacher who deviated by as much as a finger's breadth from that usage. Then again, others never set foot outside their houses, bind themselves to books as to some drudgery, turn pages and turn them again, and consider themselves happy when they have passed through a large number of pages every day. Do they not both appear wretched, if with so much toil and such damage to their health they only learn how to act foolishly?
For if first the mind is not roused by the pen, it becomes dull by itself, and then, if these people overwhelm it with immoderate listening or reading, they blunt the sharpness of the intellect, if such there is. Lack of judgement also comes about if they hear and read just the worst things eagerly, and do not range through many things. If anyone asked them, as if appealing to a judge of one's own city, what they are aiming for with this method of learning, and what purpose or what goal they have set before their mind, he would realise that – like those deprived of sense – they do not know. For they do not heed the opinions or the language of the writers, since they lack the attention to imitate. They busy only their eyes and ears, but in the meantime the mind sleeps the sleep of Epimenides,15 and, since they do not strive to imitate any fixed model, it comes about that their method of speaking and of judging becomes perverted.
Demosthenes congratulates himself when he is about to speak among the Athenians [Olynthian Orations I.I.], because they perceive by themselves what is excellent. And we commend the exercise of the pen to those
15 Epimenides was a Cretan poet said to have slept for fifty-seven years.
who have never experienced the matter, and do not even see as if through a lattice16 the advantages which that exercise brings. All the more I fear that our oration will have little credibility, since we value the pen so highly. Truly, if anyone is not utterly unsuited to the Muses, let him ponder in his mind what was the method of teaching of the ancients, by which all disciplines were not only rendered illustrious, but also increased. Few authors, but only the best, were proposed in schools, whom the young were to imitate. There is a rule for agriculture that the land should not be larger than one can cultivate properly, for Virgil says: ‘Large fields are to be praised,: but small ones cultivated’[Georgics II.412f.]. In the same way the ancients, when they saw that many authors could not be taught thoroughly or imitated, and that the young minds were confounded rather than educated by the throng of writers, they admitted fewer authors, with whom the students should familiarise themselves as much as possible. Likewise, they declaimed assiduously, some wrote verse, and others free style; and since they competed in their zeal to speak well, their attention and care sharpened their judgement. While there was no more pleasing sight than this instruction, there was also nothing more useful that could be done in private or in public. For from these schools came forth most renowned men in past centuries – Greeks and Romans, and also many Christians. If our contemporaries strove to imitate them, good God, how much more would human affairs flourish, and how much more successfully would the Holy Scriptures be dealt with? Furthermore, since the ancients put so much effort into exercising the pen, since neither erudition nor a certain eloquence can be obtained without this study, and since what is written sagaciously by others cannot be understood unless we rouse our intellect by the use of the pen, please allow me to ask you that you sometimes put your powers to the test by the pen. I request something that is not very difficult, and is profitable, for there is no greater addition to your studies from any other thing.
You should master both verse and free speech; for I see that those who do not attain poetry speak somewhat more tediously, and merely crawl on the ground, and have neither weightiness of words nor any strength of figures of speech. Since it is moreover by far the easiest thing to detect rough and uneven compositions in verse, it happens that those who make poems judge correctly about the rhythms of free speech. And I do not know
16 Seeing through a lattice is a saying derived from the practice of shopkeepers of erecting screens in front of articles which they did not want handled. The phrase means a distant inspection in outline rather than a close and detailed examination of things: see Erasmus, Adages, III.i.49.
whether it applies to all writing, when people begin to despise poetry. For it comes about that the ornaments and splendour of words are not held in regard, people write with less care, everything is read more negligently, and the zeal for inquiring into things flags.
Therefore, in Roman times too the contempt for poetry led to unbelievable ignorance of all things, as well as lack of eloquence. And thus in our times, if our men began to make verses, poetry would return to favour with the better writings. I do not see how one could preserve whatever elegance has blossomed anew in this century unless the young reflect upon poems by exercising their pen. M[arcus] Cicero, too, thought that fluency was nourished by writing verse, and it is well known that for that reason he often wrote poems, and was very fond of poetry. Posterity can see several of his epigrams, and today there survive some passages from famous poets, most clearly expounded by him in Latin verse. The orator Pliny [the Younger], by his published poems, testifies that his power of speech was assisted by that study. Therefore, those who wish to employ their time well in studying should imitate the example of the ancients and, as Quintilian says, by the trustworthy pen achieve fluency and sharpen their judgement [Institutes of Oratory X.7.7]. For those are greatly deceived who hope to advance themselves in writing without that practice. The sea is more likely to bear grapes than that he achieve erudition or the ability to speak, who – just like one who is rendered unconscious by mandrake17 – never grows warm, in order to awaken his intellect by writing.
I have expounded the reasons which attract me to the study of the arts of speaking, without doubt because both a fixed method of speaking needs to be observed, and some power of judgement is conveyed to the student by the habit of these arts. If anyone thinks that this has nothing to do with him, he is without doubt very far removed from any feeling of humanity. Good men, on the other hand, will rush to these studies, with sails and oars,as they say [Cicero, Tusculan Disputations III.11.25], as soon as they have contemplated the strength of the advantages which we gain from speech, and have realised both that a fixed method of speaking is needed and that by these arts the mind is rendered more cultivated.
In truth there are not too few, in particular in these times, who hinder the course of good men; these deny that the knowledge of the arts of speaking contributes to the study of theological writings, and this error – spread
17 From antiquity, mandrake was known to induce sleep and was thus used to cure insomnia: see Erasmus, Adages, IV.v.64.
widely as if by some contagion – has seized many who spurn the humanities in order not to appear to be theologising improperly. I certainly wish that they practised theology seriously, and offered those things which are suitable for the Christian mind. I see that nowadays the name of theology is only a pretext for sloth, and that furthermore it resembles nothing less than what they declare.
For while it irks them to study eloquence and fret themselves by expounding most difficult writers and exercising the pen (for no knowledge of any writings is achieved without zealous study), occasionally when they return home well drunk they may read some trifling speech. Then, when they have plucked from it what suits their taste, they declaim it here and there at banquets – for there they are especially clever. And since the crowd applauds, in truth, presently they appear only to themselves18 as perfect theologians, since vulgar men discuss the weightiest matters with a filthy mouth and without any religion. And when Paul prohibits hawking the word of God (kapēleuein logon theou) [2 Corinthians 2:17], no one trades in the word of God more impudently than those who – since they cannot prove themselves either by good morals or by good education – would purchase the favour of the crowds by an impious treatment of the Holy Scriptures. What is the penalty? You can see them spurn our writings, in which all good and worthy things, piety, public morals, and indeed Christ, are related. If we had a well-established state, we would not chastise them by our speech, but the magistrate would do so by force. For what torture would those not deserve, who, even if they do not transgress otherwise, divert the young from writings by their example?
Unless these writings are studied, we shall have a posterity that is in no way more sane than past centuries, when the ignorance of writings had overthrown all human and divine matters. Indeed, therefore we think of it in that way, that in time past, when God was sorely angered against the Church, writings were snatched away, and ignorance of holy things followed. For when God wanted to speak in our words, those who were inexperienced in the arts of speaking judged foolishly on the divine word. Furthermore, what blindness possessed men's minds in those times? How few knew Christ? Indeed, the literature that contained sacred matters had already fallen into disuse. The Parisians fashioned clauses which for a time the world worshipped as though they were divine laws; there was nothing pious, except for what they dreamt up. And, since they had no writings
18 Omitting non.
from which to learn how to be wise, the charming men devised that foolish sophistry, and began to argue about fabricated compositions of words, so that they would even speechify about what the difference was between ‘The Pope I saw’and ‘I saw the Pope’. A Parisian clause still exists today: ‘‘‘I runs“ (Ego currit) is said badly in Latin; whoever disagrees is a heretic.'Does it not seem that the neglected writings have sufficiently avenged the affront? For who would believe that the authors of such nonsense had a brain?
In truth that misfortune is to be attributed to a large extent to the ignorance of writings; for the holy things were not accessible, as though cut off by thickets and foliage, whence the method for educating the mind properly would be available, and the skilful writers, too, who would teach about human matters, were neglected. How much more bearable would it have been for the Church to be struck by a plague or by a scarcity of produce than by such madness? I am wholly convinced that it is an example of certain divine wrath, if ever literature is snatched away from the world. For the pious, too, are often touched by other punishments, but public impiety accompanies ignorance of literature. In recent times, indeed, when the excellent Father had begun again to turn His attention to the wretched, and was going to give back to us the Gospel, because of His generosity He also restored writings, by which the study of the Gospel would be assisted. The gift of tongues bestowed upon the Apostles must not be seen as more extraordinary than the fact that from such foulness these writings were recovered from a darkness greater than that of the infernal regions19 and brought back to light.
It is not unknown that the knowledge of writings is a help to some good men in renewing theology. First, therefore, it would be ingratitude to spurn the heavenly gift; furthermore, since the holy things were renewed by the help of the writings, we would be impious if we had no knowledge of the things without which theology could not continue. And to say in a few words what I judge that the knowledge of languages can contribute to the study of the Holy Scriptures, I am not so mistaken that I declare that sacred matters can be penetrated by the industry of human minds. There are things in sacred matters which no one would ever behold, were it not that God shows them to us, nor does Christ become known to us, unless
19 The reference to infernal regions (Tartareis) is possibly a pun on the name of Petrus Tartaretus, a Scotist at the Sorbonne active around 1480 to 1490. His scholastic textbooks were originally taught at Wittenberg: see Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, pp. 15–18.
the Holy Spirit teach us. For Christ Himself says that he is magnified (doxasthenai) by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, because of prophecy, the power of words must be known, in which divine mysteries are hidden as if in a shrine. For what is it, to pronounce words you do not understand in the way of magic? Is that not like telling a story to a deaf man?20 But no one could judge correctly about speech unless he had thoroughly studied the method of speaking correctly. For what is easier than to be deceived by some word or figure of speech? Recently, when one of our masters explained what is related of Melchizedek in Genesis [14:18] – rex Salem panem ac vinum obtulit – he did not realise that Salem is the name of a place, and discoursed much about the strength and nature of the seasoning, for the similarity of the words tricked the good man.21 For those who do not train their intellect by the arts of speaking read everything negligently.
These word-forms have tricked even the educated, for no amount of practice in speaking and writing makes one sufficiently prudent. The other day, some learned man asked me what Paul means when he says in the letter to Timothy: ‘She shall be saved in the childbearing, if they continue in faith’[I Timothy 2:15] – for the Greeks express the verb in the plural. Since I had no good answer, I consulted the commentaries. And behold Chrysostom, how nicely he talks nonsense, when he relates the verb ‘they continue’ (meinōsi) to the offspring. It is easy to judge that this does not fit Paul's purpose. The old man does not see that there is a grammatical compound, as he expresses the neutral with a verb in the plural. The daily usage of writers will supply similar examples.
Finally, for what other reason did the sophists devise a new kind of theology, having banished the Holy Scriptures, than because they did not understand their language and method of arguing? If anyone is not deterred from barbarity by their example, he must be punished not by speech, but by cudgelling to death.22 For if the young continue to despise good writings, it will no doubt happen that – while the best things are neglected – again all holy and good things go to ruin. For whoever thinks that these bad theologians are barbarians in their words only, and not also in their minds, is mistaken. Again, if at some time Church dogma needs to be defended, what, I ask you, can one offer who cannot express what he
20 Cf. Terence, Heauton Timorumenos II.1.10.
21 The correct meaning of the passage is: ‘Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine’. The Latin for salt is sal, the accusative of which is salem, and thus could be confused with the town Salem, in which case Melchizedek the king would have ‘brought forth salt, bread and wine’.
22 Cudgelling to death was a military punishment for desertion: see Cicero, Philippic, III.Vi. 14.
thinks? Or should he bring to it some miscellaneous or Stoic oration, in which he disputes the placing of points between words? If the listener expected from him a clear treatment of the holy dogma, he would, just like the gaping raven,23 go away vexed with troublesome distinctions which are continued for a long time to no purpose. In like manner, those who are involved in the study of piety should fulfil the duty, both towards Christ and towards the public necessity of the Church, to learn how to speak correctly. Paul also calls for this, when, in the letter to the Corinthians, he commends the study of languages [I Corinthians 14:5 and 39]. His authority should be deservedly strong among you, in whose mouth he is so often.
I have indicated in a few words what the knowledge of speaking correctly contributes to the study of secular or sacred writings. Now it is your task to be reconciled with more elegant writings, and to embrace them avidly. I see many hasten prematurely towards the more serious disciplines, as they call them; some the hope for gain drags away towards studying law or medicine, others direct their course towards theology, before building up some strength in the study of the arts of speaking. If they undertook these things in their order, good God, how much more successfully would they deal with the matter? Now they delay themselves by their ill-advised shortcut.
There was among us a fool, who carried wood into the master's kitchen in a foolish way. He used to pull away logs from the bottom of the pile, which could not be moved without great exertion. Asked why he did this, he answered that he would complete the most difficult work first, and that those on top would be easier to move, and he did not see how much it would profit to take the individual ones in order. Those seem to me most similar to him, who disdain these arts and hasten forth towards lofty things. For both the toil of learning is increased and everything is treated in a more unsuitable way if they are not refined by the first principles. Immortal God, how unfortunate that it was granted to our ancestors to bring these things about. There is no form of the arts that in past centuries was not basely defiled by those who – since they did not apply themselves to elegant writings – rushed into the best and weightiest disciplines like swine into roses. Theology was utterly overwhelmed by stupid and ungodly questions. Those who taught philosophy did not even understand the name of the art sufficiently. It was not enough for fair and good laws that some rational men mingled with those who were ignorant of elegant writings, because the discipline itself is derived right from the humanities, and the
23 Legacy-hunters are called gaping ravens in Horace, Satires, II.v.56.
writings of the ancient lawyers are full of antique and true erudition. Now I do not reproach only the filthiness of speech of the teachers of the arts, but the imprudence, a vice from which those whose intellect is not refined by the arts of speaking cannot free themselves.
Therefore I do not cease from encouraging you to the study of eloquence and of these arts, without which it is impossible not to treat other disciplines in an unsuitable way, because it is proper for you and public necessity requests it. For where barbarity mars the weightier disciplines, men's morals are usually also imperilled. For it is much truer that morals are achieved by knowledge than, as Plato wrote, from the songs of the musicians. I have spoken.