De ōrātōre

 

De Oratore ("On the Orator") is a discourse on rhetoric written by Cicero in 55 BC. It contains the second known description of the method of loci, a mnemonic technique (after the Rhetorica ad Herennium).

Book One

• The first of three books addressed to Cicero's brother Quintus.

Introduction

• Cicero begins his book by addressing this as a conversation to his brother. He continues on explaining his circumstances in life while reflecting on the lives of the people of the State.

Education of the orator

• Cicero explains that he wants to write something more refined and mature than what he had previously published in his younger and more immature days. He tells his brother that based on previous conversations with each other, they differ on the importance of eloquence - whether it is natural ability or something that needs to be taught.

Great Orators

• Cicero questions why, since there are so many men with exceptional abilities, there are so few exceptional orators. He states that there are many examples of war leaders, and will continue to be throughout history, but only a handful of great orators.

Eminence in all fields

• There have been countless men who have become eminent in philosophy because they have studied the matter thoroughly, either by scientific investigation or using dialectic methods. Each person who has studied philosophy has become eminent in their individual subject matter, which includes oratory. It is the study of oratory, however, that has had the smallest number of distinguished men, even smaller in number than those who study poetry. Cicero finds this amazing as the other arts are usually found in hidden or remote sources; whereas, all of oratory is public and in plain view to mankind, making it easier to learn.

Oratory is an attractive but difficult study

• Cicero claims that in Athens, "where the supreme power of oratory was both invented and perfected," no other study of the arts has a more vigorous life than the art of speaking. After peace had been established, it seemed as though everyone wanted to begin learning the eloquence of oral rhetoric.

• After first trying rhetoric without training or rules and using only natural skill, young orators listened and learned from Greek orators and teachers, and soon were much more enthusiastic for eloquence. Young orators learned, through practice, the importance of variety and frequency of speech. In the end, orators were awarded with popularity, wealth, and reputation.

• Cicero then claims that oratory fits into more arts and areas of study than people might think. This is the reason why this particular subject is such a difficult one to pursue. Students of oratory must have a knowledge of many matters in order to have successful rhetoric. They must also form a certain style through word choice and arrangement. Students must also learn to understand human emotion so as to appeal to their audience. This means that the student must, through his style, bring in humor and charm - as well as the readiness to deliver and respond to an attack.

• Oratory continues to be difficult in that a student must have a significant capacity for memory - they must remember complete histories of the past, as well as of the law. Cicero continues his description of oratory's difficulties when he says that in order to be a good orator, a speaker must deliver with control - using gestures, playing and expressing with features, and changing the intonation of his voice. In summary, oratory is a combination of many things, and to succeed in maintaining all of these qualities is a great achievement. This section marks Cicero's standard canons for the rhetorical composing process.

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Style
4. Memory
5. Delivery

Responsibility of the Orator

• Orators must have a knowledge in all important subjects and arts. Without the knowledge, an orator's speech will be empty and without beauty and fullness. The term "orator" in itself holds a responsibility for the person to profess eloquence, and seems to create an unspoken promise that the orator will treat every subject with distinction and knowledge. Cicero acknowledges that this is a practically impossible task, but that the Greeks, after dividing the arts, paid more attention to the portion of oratory that is concerned with the law, courts, and debate, and therefore left these subjects for orators in Rome.

Date, scene, and persons

Cicero tells a story that has been related to him by Cotta, of a group of men who came together to discuss the crisis and general decline of politics, and what they should do about the decay. One member, Scaevola, wants to imitate Socrates as he appears in Plato's Phaedrus. Crassus replies that instead they will find a better solution, and calls for cushions so that this group can discuss it more.

Thesis: the importance of oratory to society and the state

Crassus states that oratory is one of the greatest accomplishments that a nation can have. He extols the power that oratory can give to a person- including the ability to maintain civil rights, words to defend oneself, and the ability to revenge oneself on a wicked person. The ability to converse is what gives mankind our advantage over other animals and nature. It is what creates civilization. Since speech is so important, why should we not use it to the benefit of oneself, other individuals, and even the entire State?

• Thesis challenged

Scaevola agrees with Crassus's points except for two. Scaevola does not feel that orators are what created social communities and he questions the superiority of the orator if there were no assemblies, courts, etc. It was good decision making and laws that formed society, not eloquence. Was Romulus an orator? Scaevola says that there are more examples of damage done by orators than good, and he could cite many instances. There are other factors of civilization that are more important than orator: ancient ordinances, traditions, augery, religious rites & laws, private individual laws. Had Scaevola not been in Crassus's domain, Scaevola would take Crassus to court and argue over his assertions, a place where oratory belongs. Courts, assemblies and in the Senate are where oratory should remain, and Crassus should not make oratory important in any other fields other than these. That is too sweeping for the profession of oratory.

• Reply to challenge

Crassus replies that he has heard Scaevola's views before in many people including Plato in Gorgias. However, he does not agree with their viewpoint. In respects to Gorgias, Crassus was more impressed by the fact that while Plato was making fun of orators, Plato himself was the ultimate orator. If the orator was nothing more than a speaker without the knowledge of oratory, how come the people that are most revered are skilled orators? The best speakers are those who have a certain "style." But the style is lost if the speaker does not comprehend the subject matter on which he is speaking.

Rhetoric is a science

Crassus says he does not borrow from Aristotle or Theophrastus their theories regarding the orator. For while the schools of Philosophy claim that rhetoric and other arts belong to them, the science of oratory which adds "style," belong to its own science. Each individual school has its own specialty, (i.e. law and religion) but it is the orator who has to have knowledge of all these arts as well as the style to speak on them.

The orator must know the facts

In order to speak effectively on a subject, the orator must have some knowledge of that subject. Can an advocate for or against war speak on the subject without knowing the art of war? Can an advocate speak on legislation if he doesn't know law or how the administration process works?

Even though others will disagree, Crassus states that a professor of the natural science such as mathematics also must use oratory style to give an effective speech on his subject. For example, Ascleoiades, a well-known physician, was popular not just because of his medical expertise, but because he could share it with eloquence.

The orator can get up technicalities, but he must be versed in political and moral science

Anyone who can speak with knowledge upon a subject can be called an orator as long as he does so with knowledge, charm, memory and has a certain style. Philosophy is divided into three branches: nature, dialectic and knowledge of human conduct. In order to truly be a great orator, one must master the third branch. Mastery of the third branch is what distinguishes the orator and the great orator.

The orator, like the poet, needs a wide education

An orator is very much like the poet. The poet is more encombered by rhythm than the orator, but in word choice and ornamentation his equal. Crassus then replies to Scaevola's remark about being in Crassus domain (law). Crassus states that he would not have made the claim that orators should be knowledgeable in all subjects had he himself been the person he is describing. But, one should not be listed as an orator if he has not been able to demonstrate knowledge of the accomplishments of oratory.

Parts XVII and XVIII: The position challenged and defended

Scaevola says he will debate with Crassus no longer. Crassus has managed to twist some of what he has said to his benefit. Scaevola appreciates the fact that Crassus, unlike some others, didn't jeer at Philosophy and the other arts, but instead gave them credit and put them under the category of oratory. Scaevola cannot deny that a man who had mastered all the arts, and was also a powerful speaker, would indeed be a remarkable man. And if there ever were such a man, it would be Crassus.

Crassus again denies that he is this kind of man. He is talking about an orator, not himself. However, if others think he is this good an orator, what then would they think of a person who had greater skills and really was an orator?

Antonius says that Crassus has made his case effectively. But to become a great orator by Crassus's definition would be difficult. First, how would a person get knowledge of every subject? Second, it would be hard for this person to stay strictly true to traditional oratory and not be led astray into advocacy. Antonius ran into this himself while delayed in Athens. Rumor got out that he was a "learned man", and he was approached by many people to represent their personal causes. In Athens there are many men such as Crassus describes, but these orators were mainly philosophers or artisans rather than civil leaders.

Charmadus, an Athenian orator, did not know everything about his subject, but felt that oratorical skills would derive from studying the philosophers.

Report of debate at Athens

Antonius tells of the debate that occurred in Athens regarding this very subject. Menedemus, a politician and lawyer in Athens, says that one must understand the fundamentals of government to be an orator. This angered Charmadas, who thought that law and politics didn't teach knowledge of the gods, self-control, moderation, etc. Their study book only taught the technical aspect of law (such as how to write a law) but nothing about justice, loyalty, fairness or the building of human character. Because of this, the authors of these books had neither true wisdom, nor eloquence. The only way to achieve this knowledge was through knowledge of the philosophers. Menedemus rebuted Charmadas by quoting passages from the speeches of Demosthenes. And he gave examples of how speeches given from the knowledge of law and politics can compel the audience.

Charmadas agrees that Demosthenes was a good orator, but questions whether this was a natural ability or because of his studies of Plato. Demosthenes often said that there was no art to eloquence - that there were those born with an apptitude for it. Demosthenes even mentions Antonius himself in his speeches as one who had never learned anything but was a good orator. In a nutshell, Antonius thought Demosthenes appeared to be arguing that there was no "craft" of oratory and no one could speak well unless he had mastered philosophical teaching. Charmadas spoke favorably of Crassus' talents.

Real eloquence unknown

Antonius then claims that, having been convinced by those arguments, he wrote a pamphlet about them. (Which he states the public got copies of without his knowledge or consent!) Someday, somewhere a man will come along who will not just claim to be eloquent, but will actually be truly eloquent. And if this man isn't Crassus, then he can only be only a little bit better than Crassus.

Sulpicius is gleeful that, as he and Cotta had hoped, someone would mention Antonius and Crassus in their conversations so that they could get some glimmer of knowledge from these two respected individuals. Since Crassus started the discussion, Sulpicius asks him to give his views on oratory first. Crassus replies that he would rather have Antonius speak first as he himself tends to shy away from any discourse on this subject. Cotta is pleased that Crassus has responded in any way because it is usually so difficult to get him to respond in any manner about these matters. Crassus agrees to answer any questions from Cotta or Sulpicius, as long as they are within his knowledge or power.

Is there a science of rhetoric?

Sulpius asks, "Is there an 'art' of oratory?" Crassus responds with some contempt. Do they think he is some idle talkative Greekling? Do they think that he just answers any question that is posed to him? It was Gorgias that started this practice - which was great when he did it - but is so overused today that there is no topic, however grand, that some people claim they cannot respond to. Had he known this was what Sulpius and Cotta wanted, he would have brought a simple Greek with him to respond- which he still can do if they want him to.

Mulcius chides Crassus. Crassus agreed to answer the young men's questions, not to bring in some unpracticed Greek or another to respond. Crassus has been known for being a kind person, and it would be becoming for him to respect their question, to answer it, and not run away from responding.

Crassus agrees to answer their question. No, he says. There is no art of speaking, and if there is an art to it, it is a very thin one, as this is just a word. As Antonius had previously explained, an Art is something that has been thoroughly looked at, examined and understood. It is something that is not an opinion, but is an exact fact. Oratory cannot possibly fit into this category. However, if the practices of oratory and how oratory is conducted is studied, put into terms and classification, this could then - possibly - be considered to be an art.

Requirements of the orator

Natural talent, says Crassus, is the most important factor to be a good orator. Using Antonius's example earlier, these people didn't lack the knowledge of oratory, they lacked the innate ability. There are certain traits that the orator will have such as the natural ability to invent, copius in talking, strong lungs, certain voice tones, particular body physique as well as a pleasant looking face. Those that have these traits can always be made better orators through knowledge and polish, but without the basic physical talents and body requirements, will not succeed into the ranks of great orators. As, unfortunately, almost everyone will pay attention more to the defects of the speaker himself than what he is saying.

However, since the objective is to look for The Perfect Orator, we must imagine one who has all the necessary traits without any flaws. Ironically, since there is such a variety of lawsuits in the courts, people will listen to even the worst lawyer's speeches, something we wouldn't put up with in the theatre. And now, Crassus states, he will finally speak about that which he has always kept silent. The better the orator, the more shame, nervous and doubtful he will feel about his speeches. Those orators that are shameless should be punished. Crassus himself declares that he is scared to death before every speech.

Because of his modesty in this speech, the others in the group elevate Crassus in status even higher.

Orators judged less leniently than actors

Antonius notes that he has noticed this scaredness in Crassus and other really good orators. This is because really good orators know that sometimes the speech doesn't have the intended effect that the speaker wished it to have. Also, orators tend be judged harsher than others as they are required to know so much about so many topics. An orator is easily set-up by the very nature of what he does to be labeled ignorant.

Antonius agrees that an oratory must have some natural gifts. To simply be an ordinary man in any other field of study, none of the traits that Crassus mentioned are particularly necessary. But for an orator, there are so many requirements (i.e. memory of a lawyer, speech of a poet, subtlty of a logician, a philosopher's thought process, and the abilities of an actor) that one must have a natural base to start with in order to achieve proficiency.

And yet, Crassus says, how little is put into learning the art of oratory versus other arts. It is too easy to not be perfect and to make many mistakes. Therefore, since Crassus himself does not claim to be perfect, he feels it would be shameful of himself to demand that other orators be this perfect. However, for the man who does not have the natural ability for oratory, he should instead step down from this goal and to achieve something that is more within his grasp.

The school course in rhetoric

You will find it's not really mysterious, Crassus tells the two listeners. First is a liberal education and follow the lessons that are taught in these classes: the style to use, the proper types of speech to use, etc. to prove his case. The speaker must get the goodwill of the audience to establish his case, disprove the other's side and then reiterate his own case.

One must speak properly using proper Latin, be lucid, elegant, and use speech in such a matter that the topic dictates.

It is for the professors to learn and teach all these individual matters, and it is good to learn from these teachers all of this knowledge. For the virtue in learning all of this is not that orators have gained a reputation for eloquence, but that the knowledge has been gained by studying those who are naturally eloquent in speech. One must also practice their skills and what they have learned in their lessons in the real world by training and speaking in courts of law.

Rules for preparatory training

The most common mistake is the assumption that an orator becomes a great speaker simply by practicing speaking. It is just as easy to become a good speaker as a bad speaker using this method. The key is to do what we don't do very often, and that is to prepare more carefully by writing. Practicing one's writing skills will slow the speaker down and he will be able to process and create a better speech. Writing teaches rhythm and an arrangement of words that will be pleasing to an audience.

Therefore, in order to practice his writing skills, when Crassus was younger, he began to read and then imitate poetry. But this didn't work as well as he had hoped. So he began to translate Greek speeches into Latin. This led to finding better words to use in his speeches as well as providing new analogies that would appeal to the audience. As for the proper voice control, one should study actors, not just orators. Train one's memory by learning as many written works as possible. Study, criticize and refute all the learned professors of history and the arts. Learn both sides to every argument, study law, politics, etc., and finally, as an added measure, sprinkle on humor.

• Further detail requested

Everyone is silent. Then Scaevola asks if Cotta or Sulpicius have any more questions for Crassus.

Views of Antonius, gained from his experience

Antonius offers his perspective, which comes not from studying oratory, but from his own practical use in the law courts and from observations. He decides to begin his case the same way he would in court, which is to state clearly the subject for discussion so that the speaker doesn't ramble on and the issue is not understood by the disputants. For example, if the subject were to decide what exactly is the art of being a General, then he would have to decide what a General does, determine who is a General and what that person does. Then he would give examples of Generals, such as Scipio and Fabius Maximus. And if he were defining what a Statesman is, he would give a different definition, characteristics of men who fit this definition, and specific examples of men who are Statesmen, such as Sextus Aelius, Manius Manilius and Publius Mucius. The same would be done with musicians, poets, and those of lesser arts. The philosopher stands alone because he is required to know everything about everything. But the orator is only a division of the philosopher, who doesn't have to be omniscient. He simply needs to know how to use language that is delivered in a persuasive manner to win his argument.

Antonius thinks that by defining the oratory in too broad a manner Crassus has degraded the occupation. For example, if oratory included even the occupation of a statesman, isn't this an insult to those statesmen who have studied and have the knowledge and wisdom of their profession to say that the oratory is better at it than they are? A good and knowledgeable senator who doesn't speak as well is just as capable as the orator.

Wide culture indispensable for the orator

Everyone will obtain knowledge of various arts simply by the act of studying their primary art, and Antonius agrees that wide knowledge is necessary for the orator.

• To influence his audience he needs knowledge of the world;
• he does not require philosophy.

Antonius also is not bothered by Crassus' idea that emotions must be stirred in the orator, as this is quite common with Philosophers. The orator, by his very nature, incites emotions in his speeches. However, the orator does NOT need the rules of philosophers to govern and define what he does. What the orator needs is to understand the world, have experienced real life, and relate with the thoughts and feelings of various types of people. Antonius gives an example of a speech Crassus gave to the Senate, and Antonius likens the slavery image in this speech to the orator defined by Crassus being a slave to philosophical rules.

Instead philosophy might disapprove of some effective lines of pleading

Antonius then gives an example of an effective speech that philosophical rules would not approve of. This is the speech to the Senate by Publius Rutilius, who was able to get Servius Galba punished by the use of a highly emotional speech which caused many in the audience to cry. But if Crassus had been there to speak instead of Rutilius, he would have tempered his speech with eloquence and proper speech techniques, thus losing its emotional appeal and most likely the verdict would have gone differently.

Antonius then questions why the great Socrates is revered by the philosophers when Socrates himself possessed little oratory skills. Why would an orator follow the rules of a philosopher who had himself condemned to death in the Senate by his own poor skills? Antonius has no quarrel with the rules and teachings, but believes that great eloquence can come from other methods apart from learning the art of Philosophy.

Granted, Crassus spoke highly of learning the art of law, and Antonius has no quarrel with learning law. But the orator can be a good speaker without in-depth knowledge of law, as the law is often uncertain.

It is possible to apply knowledge of one case to another ("because the same kind of skill is used in steering a little craft as a large one") without knowing all the details of the second. This isn't shameless, as every case is different.

Using Crassus' discussion with Servius Galba (his senior and a past consul), and a case for Manius Curius as examples, Antonius explains that Crassus wins verdicts by using wit, charm, and pleasantries, despite being out-argued by other orators.

Given a general knowledge of law, special points can be looked up

Similarly delivery does not require special study

Yes, the orator must be able to have good mannerism to present himself well, but to become a slave to mastering this task may not be so essential. Orators are not actors, and do not need the same skills as actors. What the orator can do in gestures and intonations may be learned by instinct. However, what the orator DOES need in court, is the help of an assistant - namely an attorney -who knows all the laws or where to find them.

Old age does not require knowledge of the law to give it occupation

As for loneliness being held at bay in old age by knowledge of law, having a large sum of money will relieve this loneliss just as well. Antonius is surprised that Crassus does not acknowledge that there are many forms of oratory, and he should have mentioned the others. Is this because Crassus is afraid to do so, worried that he will no longer be worshipped as great? Antonius disagrees with Crassus to such an extent in his views, that Antonius will take the loneliness of old age as a haven, not to be scared of. He himself is looking forward to the leisure time.

General culture is sufficient

• The important thing is practice.

Adjournment of the debate

At the end of the debate, no one seems to know whose opinion is closer to the truth. Crassus addresses Antonius saying that Antonius has confined the function and role of the orator, whereas Crassus has envisioned a wider ideal. He then asks Antonius to expound on his observations further, but since they have been talking long enough, should adjorn and go rest until it has cooled down. Everybody agrees, and they adjourn.

Donate to Wikimedia