Cicero's+De+Oratore

Best remembered for being the greatest orator in Rome, **Cicero** was also a philosopher, lawyer, and politician, among other things. He strove **“to move, to teach, to please”** as the leading politician and rhetorical theorist of the time. He was elected praetor, which was one of 8 high judges in Rome. He enhances the already existing Greek rhetorical theory by developing a relationship between the art of persuasion and service to the nation. "De Oratore" literally is translated to "On the Orator". "De Oratore" begins as a conversation between Cicero and his brother. It is said to be inspired by Plato's Dialogues, except set in Rome and without as many rules of rhetoric. Rather, it is a conversation taking place where advice is given, but rules are not inherently spelled out.

Cicero’s De Oratore overview Crassus states that in the school, the duty of the orator is to speak persuasively, and only to speak with the intent to answer a question. They should not mention specific names or events.
 * 1) In this opening paragraph, Cicero is simply writing to his brother, telling him that his chief focus is writing.
 * 2) This is where Cicero begins to talk about oratory. While talking about eloquent men, along with their own pasts, he says he considers eloquence “to be the offspring of the accomplishments of the most learned men”, but that his brother thinks “it must be regarded as independent of elegant learning, and attributable to a peculiar kind of talent and practice.” Now he is looking back fondly at all accomplished men, saying that there is and has been a shortage of great orators for some time now.
 * 3) Now Cicero says that he could name plenty of distinguished philosophers and perfectors of other sciences from ancient Greek times, but there are less poets than anything else. And out of these few poets, there are even fewer that know how to speak well. He says that “the whole art of speaking lies before us, and is concerned with common usage and the custom and language of all men.”
 * 4) Since the Romans have heard and seen all that Athens had to offer on perfecting the art of speaking, Rome now does it better. It’s no secret that those few who are great orators have more money and power than anyone else in the city, so why aren’t more people wondering why there are so few good orators?
 * 5) The only reason good orators are so hard to find has to do with the sheer magnitude and difficulty of the art; only a few people are capable of it.
 * 6) A praiseworthy orator must possess a knowledge of everything which translates into “ornate and copius language.” The subject must be understood and felt by the speaker, so as not to speak empty words. Cicero says he prefers Roman rhetoricians to the Greeks.
 * 7) We are introduced to Crassus and an interaction that happened previously.
 * 8) Crassus concludes “for I consider, that by the judgment and wisdom of the perfect orator, not only his own honour, but that of many other individuals, and the welfare of the whole state, are principally upheld.”
 * 9) Scaevola has a long speech here where he talks about famous Greek rhetoricians. He speaks of how orators need to be careful because the greatest speakers he ever witnessed eventually brought ruin to their country. All in all, he says “you shall seem to the wise to speak with eloquence, and even to the simple to speak with truth.”
 * 10) What Crassus replies is best summed up with this quote: “A controversy indeed on the word ORATOR has long disturbed the minute Grecians, who are fonder of argument than of truth. For if any one pronounces him to be an orator who can speak fluently only on law in general, or on judicial questions, or before the people, or in the senate, he must yet necessarily grant and allow him a variety of talents; for he cannot treat even of these matters with sufficient skill and accuracy without great attention to all public affairs, nor without a knowledge of laws, customs, and equity, nor without understanding the nature and manners of mankind; and to him who knows these things, without which no one can maintain even the most minute points in judicial pleadings, how much is wanting of the knowledge even of the most important affairs? But if you allow nothing to belong to the orator but to speak aptly, ornately, and copiously, how can he even attain these qualities without that knowledge which you do not allow him? for there can be no true merit in speaking, unless what is said is thoroughly understood by him who says it.”
 * 11) An orator should be able to speak on a subject better than the author could. “For the proper concern of an orator is language of power and elegance accommodated to the feelings and understandings of mankind.”
 * 12) The complete orator is someone who can speak on all subjects with ease and intelligence.
 * 13) Here, Crassus refutes what Socrates has previously said about people with the most knowledge being the most eloquent on a subject: “no man can be eloquent on a subject that he doers not understand; and that, if he understands a subject ever so well, but is ignorant how to form and polish his speech, he cannot express himself eloquently even about what he does understand.”
 * 14) Crassus understands that an orator who knows every subject seems a bit too comprehensive. He explains that the orator should be most proficient in whatever subject he’s speaking about, and then all other knowledge can only help him, subsequently. So it is advantageous for an orator to have a complete knowledge set on as many topics as possible.
 * 15) He goes on to say that it is very clear if an orator has just been versed in a single topic and does not know how to convey this knowledge, or if he knows the rules of good speaking and can explain this knowledge to a crowd.
 * 16) Crassus wants to make sure we understand he has been talking about the talents of a true orator this whole time, not himself.
 * 17) “Those whom we call orators were nothing but a set of mechanics with glib and well-practised tongues, but that no one could be an orator but a man of true wisdom; and that eloquence itself, as it consisted in the art of speaking well, was a kind of virtue, and that he who possessed one virtue possessed all, and that virtues were in themselves equal and alike; and thus he who was eloquent possessed all virtues, and was a man of true wisdom”
 * 18) Menedemus did not think highly of Roman teachers “not only are they destitute of the knowledge which they arrogated to themselves, but that they did not even know the proper art and method of speaking”
 * 19) A conversation that has already happened is still being re-told here. The story goes that Charmadus was convinced that there was no art to speaking, that no one could speak skillfully, and that there was no such thing as a master rhetor.
 * 20) Crassus says he didn’t agree with what Charmadus said. He told Charmadus that he was an eloquent speaker and that he predicts that someday an eloquent speaker will again rise from Rome.
 * 21) &23
 * 22) Scaveola goes back on what he earlier said and clarifies what he meant. If done properly, speaking could definitely be considered an art. But, “there are other things of more consequence for the attainment of eloquence.”
 * 23) “For what is more foolish than to speak about speaking, when speaking itself is never otherwise than foolish, except it is absolutely necessary?”
 * 24) Orator must have “the ready tongue, ringing bones, strong lungs” in order to be successful. He must be modest and fair.
 * 25) Those who speak best, and speak with the utmost ease and grace, appear best if they do not commence their speeches with some timidity, For the better qualified a man is to speak, the more he fears the difficulties of speaking. But he who can produce and deliver nothing worthy of his subject, seems downright shameless.
 * 26) There are **two causes of such timidity**: the better the speaker, the better they knew that **the event of a speech did not always satisfy expectation even in the greatest orators**; and thus, as often as they spoke, they feared, not without reason, that what sometimes happened might happen then; the other is, that **men**, tried and **approved in other arts, if they ever do anything with less success than usual, are thought either to have wanted inclination for it, or to have failed in performing what they knew how to perform from ill health.**
 * 27) He says that oratory is the greatest art because the most thought has to go into it. Also, if a speaker messes up, everyone will remember his error rather than the bulk of the speech. This means a good orator should practice beforehand to make sure he doesn’t mess up.
 * 28) We must look at past orators and rhetors and learn from their mistakes to perfect the art of speaking.
 * 29) Crassus basically says ‘hey why are you asking about oratory in general when you could be asking me about my good speaking skills?’
 * 1) Crassus basically says ‘hey why are you asking about oratory in general when you could be asking me about my good speaking skills?’

32. Crassus speaks of the fact he knows the traditional rules of speaking: knowing proper Latin, with lucidity, with elegance and in a matter befitting the topic (with grace). Besides these rules though, there is one especially important: to practice. Practice involves training just as in sport. Sulpicius says training is exactly what he is trying to understand, and Crassus should speak more about this.

33. Crassus discusses the fact that many young men who wish to be good speakers only stick to practicing by exercising their voices, physical strength, increasing the speed of their words, and using better vocabulary. But he says they don’t realize to become better orators, they must write as much as possible. Because that way, all the thought we have can “flow up in succession to the point of our pen”. He provides he metaphor of the boat moving at high speed: if the crew takes a rest and stop rowing the boat, the boat will still go in the same direction. So it is with writing: if you write your speeches, even if you veer off, you have already started in one organized direction.

34. Crassus admits that when he was younger, he would read as much poetry or speeches as possible, memorize them, and then repeat them in his own words. What he found was that in doing this, he butchered the original material; all the best words had already been taken by the actual author. He then decided to translate the best Greek orator’s speeches into Latin and realized this worked much better, because he could decide which words to choose in his own language. He continues to give one of his most valuable pieces of advice: they must study actors as well as orators. They must bring their speeches into the light of day and actually take action in front of people, through public debate. They must not be “sheltered” at home. They must study histories, poetry, criticize every argument, become familiar with the laws and policies of empire, and last but not least, bring a tiny aspect of humor into every discourse.

35. When Crassus has finished, those listening feel that he ended too quickly. Scaevola asks the two others whether or not they can question Crassus’ argument.

VIEWS OF ANTONIUS

48. Antonius says he will speak from his own experiences, and not what other masters have taught him. Specifically, he will go on from his experiences in court. He says he will do what he thinks should always be done in every debate: state the subject clearly, so that no one veers off topic.

The men who are “theoretically and intellectually” masters of their subjects will be called generals (mentions Epaminondas and Hannibal)

But in the question of who devoted himself to the guidance of the state, “whoever knows and uses everything by which the advantage of a State is secured and developed, is the man to be deemed the helmsman of the State, and the originator of national policy” (mentions Publius Lentulus)

He asks, who should be deemed learned in the law? Experts in statutes, and customary law observed by individuals of the community and who are qualified to advise and direct in the course of a lawsuit (Publius Mucius)

49. Antonius defines the orator as a man “who can use language agreeable to the ear, and arguments suited to convince, in law court disputes and in debates of public business”. Basically, he says an orator does not claim to possess omniscience, like a philosopher does.

He claims that Crassus has given the orator limitless power, even giving him power of statesmanship. Antonius argues that authorities of the state rely on their knowledge of politics and laws, not on the art of public speaking. And good orators who also know about laws do not simply attain knowledge because they are good orators. The point is: there are differences between these two professions.

50. Antonius argues that we cannot classify a profession based on the talents of those who have come before. An orator must be knowledgeable about several subjects, so as to bring certain wisdom to his own discourse. This does not mean though, that ALL orators are well versed in the arts or politics. In a more modern context: just because Justin Timberlake both acts and sings, it does not mean the profession of singing requires you to also act. It is merely that if you do act, you might seem more talented or bring more to your art form. In other words, the orator must be knowledgeable, and not an “untrained recruit”.

51. Orators must know mankind and all the characteristics of mankind to win over his audience. Therefore orators must, both by nature and by vast amounts of experience in the world, be sharp and aware of the human condition. They must relate to the people, to whatever audience is before them and understand how they think and react in order to better their discourse.

52. In continuing with his argument about an orator truly knowing his own audience, Antonius states that as much as what plate and other philosophers said was deep and worth reading, it is also not grounded in the reality of the community. So when speaking to an audience in real life, philosophy might not actually work; these people want real change, real concrete actions that could affect them. They might not necessarily care about Plato’s version of truth. He says that if Plato’s ideas were actually put into policy, it would make no sense because they are based on an “unknown sort of republic”.

He questions the following: how can virtue be a slave if philosophers think she is always free even if the body is not? How can Crassus say the Senate must be the slaves of the people if actually the people place their fate in the senate’s hands?

53. Antonius recounts a trial when Publius Rutilius Rufus blames Servius Galba for using pathos to get the audience’s compassion when Lucius Scribonius sued him. Marcus Cato also argued against him. Galba used the story of his sons to gain compassion and was not convicted. He also chose to not be defended by a great orator like Crassus, but chose to expose the truth. Had Crassus been allowed to defend him, even if he was guilty, he would have been seen as innocent.

54. Antonius recounts the story of Socrates who, after being taken to court on a capital charge, said the wrong thing to the audience and was put to death. Antonius asks this: how can we follow only the words of philosophers about the art of oratory, when their own wise Master, Socrates, was killed for using the wrong words? He concludes that oratory and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, and in fact must be seen as completely separate.

55. Antonius admits that he sees Crassus’ affection for common law, commends the noble art of eloquence to enrich it. Yet, says Antonius, the mistake is in the fact that Crassus equates oratory with knowledge of the law. For a man may be learned in the law but not possess the attributes of eloquence, just as an orator may possess eloquence without having learned about the law. For Crassus, eloquence follows legal knowledge like “a little maid to follow at her heels”.

56-57. Antonius says even those who do not possess full awareness of the law can still make great professions within it because of eloquence. On other words, in the case of eloquence versus legal knowledge, eloquence always wins. He talks about Crassus’ past cases, when his knowledge of common law did not really aid him because he won by being humorous and convincing the audience through rhetoric: “it was by your wit and charm and highly refined pleasantries that you won the vast majority of your verdicts”.

He continues to say that there is nothing Mucius, his opponent in the case, could have said using the common law. For whichever side Crassus was arguing for, that side would have won, whether by wit or exciting compassion within his audience.

58. Antonius really criticizes Crassus here. He states that Crassus criticizes the young for not learning oratory when its so easy, yet experts boasts about mastering oratory since it’s so difficult. Crassus also says that memorizing the words of past masters is full of satisfaction, yet most of the community would rather read something else. Crassus says we must all have knowledge of past laws and policy in order to really love our country, but Antonius argues that old laws become obsolete and new, better laws are put in place of those, so what’s the point of appreciating the old?

On the issue of the law and virtue, Crassus claims that the law is just because the virtuous are rewarded and the criminal are punished. Antonius claims that virtue is always better learnt by education and persuasion, not be fear of repercussion. Finally, Antonius argues that we should only need general knowledge of a discipline for a case in order to solve it, not necessarily the long details of civil law.

59. Antonius questions: is knowledge of common law useless to an orator? Absolutely not he says, because more knowledge can only help you in court. But the needs of orators are so many; to gain knowledge on all fields of study would be draining.

He admits, when in court, orators should have elegance of Roscius, yet no one would advise him to act like an actor.

He admits: intonation and voice are very important for an orator. Yet, no one would advise him to practice like the Greeks, who use their voice in the most dramatic of ways.

All in all, the orator may practice at his own leisure, and attain these skills in whichever way he desires (“general knowledge may be gained without instruction”). Bur for legal knowledge, anyone can just open up a book. He continues to say that this is why the Greeks had assistants who knew about the law so they wouldn’t have to. In this respect, he feels, the Romans have done better because this way the smartest men also keep the law.

60. Antonius argues against Crassus’ theory that the best way to avoid loneliness in the face of old age is thoroughly gaining knowledge of the common law. He says the best part about growing old is actually leisure time. Also, Crassus shouldn’t worry about not possessing the art of oratory through old age. The fact is, according to Antonius, that there are many different styles of oratory and not all of them involve straining your voice and lungs.

He also states that Crassus’ demands for young men studying oratory are too rigorous. He lists all the required tasks that Crassus expects of them and Antonius states it is too much for their time of life, since they should be busy pursuing many other activities as well as gaining knowledge of general culture.

61. Antonius finally concludes that Crassus is right in demanding that the young orator-to-be strictly apply himself to learn his craft of choice. He agrees, by recounting the story about Demosthenes, who devoted himself to overcoming his stutter, that working hard to perfect oratory is admirable. Yet, he states that everything else required of an orator, such as gaining every type of knowledge available, is in his opinion unnecessary.

62. All the observations have ended, and Sulpicius and Cotta are still unsure about whose observations are closer to the truth. Crassus argues that Antonius made the orator like a mechanic, and that he actually does not believe this but chose to thoroughly argue a contradictory thought. He states again his opinion that an orator “ought to lack nothing in the way of equipment”.

He agrees to argue further another time, and they retire.

Scaevola makes a really funny remark about Antonius: “for I was not so much vexed by his tearing our common law to tatters, as delighted by his admission that he knew nothing about it.”