577. On the Ideal Orator 2 by James May and Jacob Wisse
Cicero relates how much he enjoyed listening to Crassus and Antonius. He sure admired those people. Cicero notes that no matter what the details- success and prominence in oratory relies on the whole of wisdom , not just oratorical rules. Q. Catullus and C. Julius Caesar Strabo arrive. They heard about the discussion and wanted to partake. The description again is interesting. Crassus was still in bed. One discussion member was sitting beside him talking. Some were strolling about outside in a garden. Nice setting. It is clear that Cicero liked to give place where things were said.
Crassus happens upon the word tactless. The whole discussion shows how precise and exact and careful a Roman like Crassus was with words. Crassus also tells stories he heard from Scaevola about how Scipio and Laelius would play and joke about. To relax the mind. Crassus once said that no one is truly free who does not do nothing from time to time. It is humorous but he meant it.
The discussion seems to show pains to avoid a discussion so deep that only the most learned would understand and it takes pains to avoid a discussion that only the dumb could follow. But do not let this mislead. This is heavy stuff.
Antonius says that art deals with such things as what are known. Oratory is based on opinion. Again be careful here. Antonius is correct- art deals with a body of knowledge. But just because what an orator says is opinion this does not mean that the system used to express that opinion does not rely on art and a body of knowledge. Oh, how I enjoy this stuff.
Antonius admits that rules exist for manipulating human feelings. This is a jab from left field in a way. Manipulating human feelings makes oratory sound like it is the tool to deceive people. But let us go on. Antonius praises eloquence. It is useful to the community. It delights the human ear and mind. A speech can be as skillfully arranged as a poem. An actor imitates life but an orator treating a real case deals with reality. All subjects belong to the orator. Clearly Antonius knows force of the Academic method of arguing both sides. He insists that orator must be rooted in practical experience. He desire to avoid countless subdivision of oratory. He complains that the power of oratory has yet to be applied to the writing of history. He criticizes Greek historians who lacked experience in pleading cases. This explains why rhetorical writings by Greeks are too narrow to really help an orator. These were written by Greeks who lacked practical experience. Back to avoiding too many divisions. When this is done, it causes the speech to viewed in pieces instead of viewing it as a whole. Cicero evidently looked at a speech as a sculpted whole. Thus each sentence must fit and part of that whole and as a group bind the whole together. No wonder he was/is a writer of the first rank. Thus Antonius admits that art of oratory may exist. He is not sure.
Antonius discusses the importance of choosing quality orator to imitate. I do not think that he means copy.
In an actual case the orator must acquaint self with case at hand. Must meet with client alone and play devils advocate. When client leaves he plays three roles: 1. he pretends to be adversary, 2. plays himself, 3. pretends to be a juror. The he figures out the category of case this one belongs to. He states the importance of experience, writing, reading, listening. He is bugged by teachers of rhetoric in that they do not extrapolate the general overriding issue at hand which would allow orator to grasp essentials of similar case. Jurists do not help either for each legal opinion is recorded under the name of the individual involved. Antonius thus rejects study of law per se as useful. But Crassus says that knowledge of law will not fail to give him back his freedom as soon as he has taken refuge in it.
Invention in oratory involves intellectual ability, method (art) and diligence. I guess diligence is needed where quality teaching is lacking and the legal system is confusing.
Antonius insists that orator is more persuasive if not found to be too educated or sophisticated. Yet again we need to combine this thought which has validity with the analogy of playing ball and wrestling etc. Antonius also cautions against excessive devotion to philosophy alone. He has good point here. Look at his reasoning. He comments on Diogenes who taught dialectic. Dialectic is the art of reasoning which distinguished between what is true and what is false. Antonius notes that this method offers no directions fro how truth may be discovered but only how it may be judged. This system does not look to general principles ands thus grapples with problems entangled in them at the bottom instead of having overall picture. It tends to deal with a difficult question after the fact. This Antonius insists does not provide foundation of what to say but only poses further problems to ponder.
Antonius had more respect for Critolaus. He looked for the essential nature of a thing. He had very high praise for Carneades.
What Antonius describes concerning seeing the essence of a case and then allowing that to determine approach reminds me of A. Lincoln. He was a master at looking at the issue and discerning the essentials of the case and the significance to the larger picture. A definition should encompass the entire nature of a matter. It is no surprise that Antonius advocates structuring argument parts to flow together as a whole. He saw the speech as a complete sculpted piece.
The ethos of a case is the character, custom, deed and life of person on trial. Pathos consists in stirring the hearts and soul of jurors.
When it comes to emotions Antonius counts long life as key to grasping. This is the part of oratory which relies more on what one observes in the forum than from books. Same with love the older one gets the more it is understood and the greater mystery it becomes.
The approach to ethos is gentle, that to pathos is force. Must be blended and must fit in with flow of the speech.
Antonius does not think that there is art in wit/humor. There are two types- one which is spread evenly the other sharp pointed. There are five questions: what is the nature of laughter, what is its source, should an orator want to stir up laughter, to what extent, into what categories can humor be divided. I wonder if Cicero desires Antonius to be facetious when he says such things. There is no art ot wit/humor. Then he proceeds to use philosophical/rhetorical categories to set up understanding. Maybe he means that wit is not an art but another art can be used to increase understanding.
The value of witticisms allows audience to visualize people involved in the witticism. Must avoid buffoonery and mime. OK to see such stuff on stage but not in court room.
Several examples follow:
Catullus (his name means puppy) was asked by Philippus why he, Catullus, was barking (shouting his speech). Catullus: I saw a thief.
Philippus: May I question the witness? (Who was very short)
Pres of Court: Provided you keep it short.
Phil: You will have no cause to complain. I will be questioning just a little bit.
This was funny, except one of the jurors was even shorter, so people laughed at him. OOps.
Scipio the Elder was adjusting a garland which had come apart a few times on his head. Publius Licinius Varus said: Don’t be surprised if it does not fit, for this is a great head.
Avoid acting like a clown.
Titius was late for Campus Martius for a game. Terentius Vespa said: excuse him- Titius broke an arm. (he was thought to be involved in vandalism of breaking off parts of sacred statues.
Cato called the famous Nobilior, Mobilior to imply that he was fickle.
Cato the Censor asked Nasica: Do you know to your satisfaction that you are a married man?
Nasica: On my word, not to my satisfaction.
Scipio said of Gaius Metellus: if his mother had given birth a fifth time, she would have borne an ass.
Publius Cornelius was a good general but very greedy. He had been elected consul during a difficult war. Gaius Fabricius did not like Cornelius but had voted for him in the election. Cornelius thanked Fabricius. Fabricius replied: No need to thank me for preferring to be pillaged rather than sold. (in antiquity the defeated were usually sold into slavery.)
Scipio as censor demoted a centurion for failing to be at the battle of Pydna.
Centurion: But I was in camp on guard.
Scipio: I do not like people who are too diligent.
Pontidius was on the witness stand.
An attorney asked: What do you think of a man caught in adultery?
Pontidius: That he is slow.
He has everything you could hope for except cash and good character.
Laughter is provided by deceiving peoples expectation by mocking other peoples’ character in giving humorous hints of our own by a comparison to something worse, by irony, by saying slightly absurd things. Antonius urges caution. Never say anything to damage case.
The order of material and common places are determined by the inherent nature of the cases, other is good judgment and good sense of orator.
The facts of the case serves as source for the rest of the speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment