576. On the Ideal Orator 1 translated by James May and Jacob Wisse- Summary

576.  On the Ideal Orator 1  translated by James May and Jacob Wisse

Cicero presents two general views on oratory:  1- it depends upon the trained skill of highly educated people, 2- depends on natural talent.  Cicero notes that there have numerous accomplished scholars in many areas but very very few in oratory.  This is due to the wide range of learning required for oratory.  Cicero gives brief list:  humor, wit, culture, history, statute law, natural law, control of body movement, gesture, intonation, grammar, literature, memory.  Oratory combines many arts.  This Cicero would say is also an art- the combination of these apparently disparate subjects under one roof.

Cicero prefers looking at a practical example of someone who achieved eloquence via experience in the forum as opposed to someone who learned theoretical instruction from Greeks.

The conversation took place with the following present:  Lucius Licinius Crassus, Quintus Mucius Scaevola, Marcus Antonius, Caius Cotta, Publius Sulpicius.  They discussed until late in the day the crisis which the Republic faced.  The events of this time led to the Social Wars.  After the discussion was over, after they had bathed and sat down to eat, their sadness was banished by the charm, wit and humor of Crassus.  The conversation takes place in September, 91 BC.  The conversation was told to Cicero by Cotta.  The next day they walked in the garden.  Scaevola after several turns in the garden suggested that they imitate Socrates.  Crassus called for cushions and all sat on benches under a plane tree.

The guests get Crassus to discuss what he usually refuses to discuss- oratory.

Crassus states that in every stable free state oratory is supreme.  Oratory is worthy of the free, generous, allows its possessor to help those in need, lift the afflicted, give safety, free a state from danger, to protect civil rights.  Oratory brought people into a community.  It led people out of wild existence, it helped to shape laws.  The complete, the finished orator brings good sense and wisdom to the service of the state.  To all of this Scaevola says that Crassus has gone too far.

Crassus says that those who claim that orators do not possess such qualities have banished the orator from knowledge needed to rise to this level.  He agrees that an orator who lacked knowledge would indeed be someone who was proficient in verbiage.  Crassus will not accept this.  Someone may be learned in mathematics but the ability that that person has to present a concept of math to an audience comes from oratory.  Oratory is an art which requires practical application of knowledge to real situations.  To Crassus oratory is not stringing words together but covers a huge number of different fields.

Crassus posses the following:  if an orator can present a subject better than an expert in that field, then there must be an aspect of oratory which goes beyond simply knowing a subject.  Socrates said that “all people are sufficiently eloquent about what they know.”  Crassus rejects this.  No one can make a quality speech if only the subject is known- speaker must know how to decorate a speech, generate interest and engage the audience.

Crassus offers this definition for  the complete orator:  can speak on any subject, express self in thoughtful and well arranged and impressive manner and memorize the speech while combining memorization with distinction and class.

Crassus admits that this may seem too comprehensive of a definition.  But who says this must find a way to reply to this:  why is it that an orator can speak better upon a subject than the expert once the expert has explained the concepts to the orator.

Crassus suggests that part of the power of oratory resides in philosophy.  There are three parts to philosophy:  nature, dialectic and human life and conduct.  The orator must master human life and conduct.  If Aratus can write a poem about astronomy when he knows little of it, why can’t an orator speak with eloquence about a subject which has been studied for some occasion?

At this point Crassus appears to diverge from subject.  He asks what does poetry have to do with orator.  Both poet and orator use rhythm, both have wide choice of words, but can employ literary devices, both may discuss any subject.  There is a fascinating analogy here.  (Remember that Cicero wrote this- the gist is that of Crassus but the ideas and concepts molded from all of this is Cicero’s.)  I am convinced that one of Cicero’s greatest strengths lie in his analogies.  They linger in the mind and if allowed set up house in the mind.  A person who plays ball in a gym may not use skills found in wrestling, running, boxing, jumping, javelin throwing but the way the ball player plays the game shows whether or not these activities have been learned.  Here is another analogy- a quality sculpted piece reveals whether or not the sculptor also knew how to paint and draw.  An orator who speaks in the forum on how to deal with Hannibal makes it clear even though the subject may not come up that the orator knows about, culture, history, conversation in the garden. 

(My has this changed the way I know view sculpture.  Texture, skin appearance and life carved from stone does not come just from skill at using the chisel.)

Scaevola admits that if such a person knew a wide range of subject that such power would be theirs but he says that such a person does not exist.  Scaevola suggests that maybe Crassus is this person.  Crassus quickly says no.  It seems that Crassus is suggesting that it is possible for such a person to exist.  He wishes to hold up an ideal which possesses the potential for reality if someone is willing to search and learn without end.

(This a characteristic I admire so in Cicero to pose the ideal in real life terms.  There are aspects of all of those who participate in the discussion who have approached the perfect orator.)

Antonius in his comments says that rhetoricians and philosophers were separate.  Crassus wants to reunite those two areas.  Antonius admits that maybe someday someone will come along who can do this.  They will need leisure to do so.

A controversial topic at this time was- is there an art of speaking?  It seems that Greek theory must be left behind.  Scaevola want educated men with experience in political activity to give an opinion.  By this he means Crassus.  If Antonius is right that oratory relies on matters known just outside of mere opinion, then the art of oratory does not exist.  All admit that quality mind is necessary.

Crassus notes that  whether art or not exists orators  come under heavy scrutiny.  In fact the better they are the more severe the judgment.

What is needed to become the perfect orator says Crassus?

Devotion to learning, study and practice.  Write as much as possible.  Find the best teachers.  Perfect the ability to arrange words, combine words.  Read verses, speeches, memorize.  Crassus used to take a speech and recompose it using different words.  This he abandoned because a fine speech already had best words.  This did not promote writing/speaking in a better way.  So he began to translate from Greek into Latin.  This forced him to make new words, come up with metaphors etc.  He had to think of the proper word in Latin.  One must practice, practice and practice hard, very hard.  One must read poetry, read philosophers, learn to praise, refute and argue both sides, learn the civil law, whole of the past, witticism, humor.  Here is another analogy to help:  if a house is full of fine and beautiful sculpture and painting but it is not properly arranged- the house is not enhanced and the beauty of the art objects is lost.

(Again- Cicero by this makes me realize how much he knew about art and the fact that Romans did not simply collect art and put it on a shelf.  It had to be made part of the home.)

Crassus mentions the case of Manius Curius and Marcus Coponius.  Knowledge of Civil Law was not enough- the key to winning the case was the art of oratory.

Crassus makes another fascinating statement.  The 12 Tables, Rome’s first law code, displays an  understanding of humanity in its brief and concise language in better fashion than typical Greek philosophy.  This sure flies in the face of everything I was ever taught about Greek philosophy.  I admire Greek philosophy but this is something worth coming to understand rather than simply dismissing it as bunk.  Romans realized that their collective wisdom was the reason that the8ir legal system surpassed that of the Greeks.  It sophistication surpassed that of any one person to create.  Hence there were Greek lawgivers but none for the Romans.  That I think Crassus/Cicero suggests is due to the fact that over a long period of time the evolution of the Roman legal system was due to combining legal needs with reality of human behavior and with the reality of human needs.  Practical experience availed itself of theory to come up with something far superior to the theory.  As Crassus says- “the home of the legal advisor is the oracle of the entire community.”  Now apply this to the perfect/complete orator- studying is essential, reading, learning etc. but practical experience is what brings it all home as they say.

The orator Crassus seeks is not found in theories of speaking.  If he does exist, he exists in the forum.

Antonius takes a different line.  Crassus he thinks has gone too far.  Such learning as Crassus describes is not necessary.  Only a modicum of knowledge is necessary.  Antonius rejects philosophy as anchor for all of this.  Yet his clever rejection makes it clear that he was very familiar with arguments derived from philosophy.  Antonius rejects Crassus’ suggestion of reuniting philosophy/rhetoric/law etc. as one.  He cites as example the Curius case- Crassus to win did not need knowledge of civil law to win but wit and humor.  This is not completely accurate.  Antonius here is playing devils advocate and having fun doing it.  Crassus did need to know civil law to treat the case.  To win the case he needed knowledge of equity which is buried in civil law.  Here the analogy Cicero used is essential- a sculptor may not need the ability to paint in order to actually carve but whether or not the sculptor knew how to paint is evident in the quality of the sculpting.

Cicero’s manner of writing is deceptive.  He is gentle, pleasant, even in a way easy to read.  The Latin is full of beauty and grace.  This sometimes obscures the depth to which his writing goes.  In the end he must be read with great care.  Each word must be savored for sound and thought.