570. Orator by Marcus Tullius Cicero, translation by H. M. Hubbell. I have found this the best explanation (besides De Oratore) of what makes great writing. He addresses or dedicates this to Marcus Junius Brutus who has asked Cicero to give his views on the subject.
What style of oratory does Cicero approve? What is the perfect oratory? He refuses to name a perfect orator. Cicero will investigate that perfect orator who perhaps has never existed. As Cicero says- there is no work so beautiful that the mind can not imagine something better.
Cicero reminds the reader that with our mind we conceive the ideal of the perfect orator but with the ears we catch only the copy.
Cicero says that the ability of the orator comes not from rhetorical schools but from the philosophical schools. The separation of philosophy from oratory was a mistake. For after this philosophy lacked the eloquence to appeal to the people and orators lacked refinement of philosophy. Philosophy helps the orator as exercise helps an actor.
Philosophy is needed for distinguishing the genus and species of anything, defining the genus and species, cataloging, determining truth and falsehood, developing sequential thinking, recognizing contradictions, figuring out ambiguities ( Cicero’s mind would not allow the silliness I hear from some teachers/thinkers today that there is a grey area so difficult that there are no solutions). For Cicero ambiguities were difficult problems which required serious thought. Level of difficulty does not mean that there is no answer.
He also recommends studying natural philosophy for in that is a wealth of material needed for discussion on world, nature and life.
To discuss these stylistic ornaments are needed. What the heck are ornaments? An understanding of power and strength contained in letters of the alphabet, in words, phrases, clauses and sentences and a whole speech.
Cicero says that there are three styles of oratory:
the plain- this is dry but ornate to a slight degree but learned. It appears untrained. This is the style a quality professor might use.
the middle style- this is not overly learned, moderately full of fire
the grand style- this is forceful, versatile, copious, grave, it arouses and sways the emotions.
There have been people with success in one or two of these but there has never been an orator successful in all three. Cicero says that the perfect orator must be successful at all three.
Now I must cover something which threads throughout the whole of the Orator. In Cicero’s time the plain orator came to be called Attic. The plain style originated in Athens, Greece. The area in which Athens is located is called Attica. Followers of Attic style in Cicero’s day insisted that the Attic style can be only one way: unadorned, plain, very learned with no hint or use of any embellishments at all. Many Atticists included Demosthenes as an Atticist. But Cicero points out that many forceful passages exist in Demosthenes. Some of those who favor the plain style call themselves Thucydidean. Thucydides wrote a history of the Peloponnesian wars. Cicero says that those who follow Thucidides’ lead in writing/speaking style follow someone whose style is fine for history but not much good for the courtroom. Cicero also points out that Carneades, a philosopher famous for his skill at engaging an audience, shows that style in philosophy is important. Carneades was very persuasive and sparked interest in the study of philosophy.
There are three types of speeches:
deliberative
forensic
epideictic
The epideictic speech is best exemplified by Isocrates. Cicero likes Isocrates for his expanded phrases; his clauses ended with a soft rhythm. He is sweet sounding, flows with ease and is copious. But Cicero says that his style is better suited to the parade than the battle which will unfold in the courtroom.
A forensic speech is given in the courtroom.
A deliberative speech is given in a meeting of the assembled people concerning some political issue.
An orator must consider three things:
What to talk about
What order to put it in
In what manner to say it
What to talk about- To figure this out an orator asks: Was it done? Look for evidence. What was done? Define the issue of dispute. Why did someone do this? This brings up the issue of right and wrong. This allows orator to expand the topic to a larger area.
Once all three of these are grasped the order can be determined.
The manner of a speech- These parts are the most important: The manner in which the speech is delivered. The use of language, movements of the body as one speaks, gestures, the quality of one’s voice. Cicero will spend most of his time on the use of language.
Before beginning Cicero points out that famous philosophers such as Plato and Theophrastus had an ornate style but one which lacked vigor and sting necessary for public life. Theirs is a gentle academic style to those of like mind, no need to use popular language, no need for rhythmical sounds, no need for moments of anger, pathos etc. These converse rather than orate. Cicero puts this in to counter those who think that the Attic style of speaking was the only way for ALL occasions and situations.
Cicero carefully outlines the epideictic style. It soothes an audience, delights, looks for ideas which are neatly put together rather than what is probable, introduces myths to make a point, uses wild metaphors, arranges words as a painter may arrange color. Clauses are balanced, equal length, frequently these clauses end with similar sounds. There is much to learn from this but the kind of oratory Cicero discusses is vehement, powerful, energetic, passionate.
If orators are going to pay attention to sounds and be concerned about pleasant tones and stuff, then this means that poetry and oratory have drawn close together. Cicero says that it used to be that the difference between poetry and prose was rhythm. But now rhythm is common in oratory. So the difference between poetry and oratory on the surface is little. But Cicero does not consider this worth much time for Cicero says that rhythm is what can be measured by the ear. What we hear will reveal the difference between the two.
The orator can speak in court, before the Senate, Assemblies. To do this the orator must be able to prove, give pleasure to the audience, and sway those listening.
Each of these requires three different styles:
the plain which is suitable for proving a point
the middle for adding pleasure to hearing a speech
the grand/vigorous for swaying those listening.
In any given speech all three must be combined to achieve success. To do this the orator needs great judgement. I have been thinking about what Cicero says and perhaps imagining this will help. Imagine four concentric circles. The outer circle is sapientia- that wisdom needed to determine what is appropriate what is not. Cicero calls this decorum. The next circle has the three styles necessary to address an issue: the plain, the middle and the vigorous. The next circle has the goals of the three styles: prove, please and sway. Within the last circle is balance. The balance needed to order/coordinate moment by moment all of the other circles to achieve success. Notice that the largest circle is that of wisdom (sapientia). That is why Cicero said at the beginning that the ability of an orator begins with philosophy. The concept of the circle means a great deal to Cicero. It is complete in and of itself. That is what Cicero wants the perfect orator to be- complete in and of itself. Aristotle said that completeness is the source or one of the sources of beauty.
The over riding rule, if there is a rule, is decorum. Doing or saying the right thing at the right time in the right way. Decorum directs thought and language. It actually covers all aspects of life. Cicero frequently uses the word in his philosophical works.
In section 71 Cicero says something which might just be the crux of his whole argument. Here is my translation:
For not every chance of life, not every public office, not every position of importance, not every period of life and not for that matter every place or circumstance of life or every audience must be handled with the same kind of words or thoughts; and always in every kind of oration as in every aspect of life what is fitting and proper must be taken into consideration both concerning what is being handled in court or the forum and it must be taken into consideration in the person both of those who speak and of those who listen.
To deny this is like saying that all poetry no matter what the subject requires the same treatment.
Cicero is curious to see where this will lead us. So he begins with the Attic orator. This orator uses plain Latin, will sound familiar to those with no eloquence at all, no rhythm at all, the structure will be loose but not rambling, no words arranged to make it sound smooth, no periodic structure (by this Cicero means, I think, that each sentence will not be looked like a piece of sculpture with all portions of the marble carved and polished to perfection.) But the Atticist will pay more attention to short clauses which make up that period. The Atticist will consider the lack of adornment becoming. There will be no pearls, no cosmetics. But one quality will be lacking: charm and richness of figurative ornament. The Atticist will be restrained in every aspect of speaking. Metaphors are ok to use because these are used by common people. Figures of thought will not be allowed. For example the Atticist cannot have the state speak.
The Middle style will have a minimum of vigor and a maximum of charm. It will be more rich in style than the Atticist. All figures of speech can be used. The difference between Middle and 3rd style will be evident when 3rd style is covered.
The 3rd style, the vigorous style will be stately and ornate, it will rush with the roar of a mighty stream, will sway and move the audience, now storms the feelings, now creeps in, implants new ideas, removes the old.
This vigorous style without limits imposed by the other two must be despised. The plain orator is thought wise because he is clear and agile. The Middle is charming. The vigorous, if it possesses nothing else but vigor, is considered insane. If each of the styles is considered alone, Attic is the best of the three. The vigorous alone is the worst. However, the perfect orator consists of all three.
The perfect orator is one who can discuss common matters in a plain style, moderate things in a restrained or tempered style and important matters in a style with strength and vigor.
Cicero does not consider himself an example of the perfect orator. This is an important aspect of Cicero often overlooked by scholars. Cicero in this as in other such matters maintained an unreachable goal to promote life long learning and effort. Think about it. If I figure that I know a subject, I cease to learn. There is always something else to add or modify.
Cicero notes that citizens of Rome enjoy the play of language in the forum, curia and law court .
Orator must be proficient at logic. Zeno, a famous philosopher, described the difference between logic and speaking. He said that logic was like a closed fist. Speaking was like an open palm. Logic was neat, tidy, self contained. Speaking might require any range of abilities. The open palm shows acceptance of all skills and knowledge needed to handle an issue. The orator must adapt logic and all of its consequences (distinguish truth and falsity, detect non sequiturs, etc.) to oratory. This logic, this aspect of philosophy, will help to lend a moral approach to speaking. The idea is not just to win the issue but keep what is fitting and proper (decorum) before the eyes at all time.
The orator must define the topic. Then divide the topic into parts so that the parts and whole of a topic may be explained and discussed.
Orator needs knowledge of natural science. Knowledge of this will allow an orator to expand on a topic and make it clear to an audience. Contemplation of the world and universe will raise appreciation of human affairs and give a loftier approach.
Orator must know and understand the civil law and the history of his own state and the history of other peoples. Cicero makes a neat comment on this subject:
To be ignorant of what went before you were born, this is always to view events of the world through the eyes of a child. For what is the life of a human, unless this memory of old circumstances is woven together with the age of earlier events? History gives intelligence to one’s perspective.
Adapting the needs of a case is very difficult. That orator will be eloquent who can adopt the speech to fit all conceivable circumstances.
One must begin with care and build up from that point. Even in the beginning everything must be said to head toward clinching the case. So the beginning must be modest but also have elements of the fire which will come later. When it comes to the part of the speech where the facts of the case are presented a plain style needs to be used. An almost conversational tone. The approach to the part of the speech which offers a proof and where the accusations of opponent are to be refuted is to be determined by how difficult the case may be.
There are ways that a speech can receive ornament:
Must examine a case and perceive in it the general principles which lie at the heart of the case. As Lincoln did when he realized that preservation of the Union was of greater import than states’ rights or the right to own human property (slavery) or for that matter the Constitution.
An orator must find a way to reveal to the audience strength of character. I mean the strength of character of the speaker, the orator. This part of the speech must be courteous and agreeable. The plain style would be handy here. The orator must learn how to arouse emotions. This requires fire, wrath, resentment, indignation. Such technique will snatch the case from and opponent.
Cicero makes it clear that he gets wrapped up in his speeches. This transmits to his audience that what he says he means, what he says is genuine and heart felt.
The ornaments of style are almost endless: words are repeated, repeated with a change, similar case endings, etc.
There are what Cicero calls figures of thought: treat same subject in different ways, stick to same idea, speak slightingly of a subject, temporarily leave a subject, then return to a subject, use syllogism, ask questions, perhaps even reply to a question, say something in such a way that it is understood in opposite sense ( “Oh, what a remarkable person you are”- when the words means just the opposite), take on someone’s character, make silent objects speak, use laughter, simile, metaphor, put down interruptors ( outbursts from audience was not unheard of in Roman trials)- this list too is almost endless.
Cicero laments attitudes common in his day:
There is a feeling that it is ok to teach about the civil law and understand what rights one has, but to teach someone to speak is suspect. It is honorable to teach aspects of civil law and it is honorable to teach the means of retaining and defending these rights. Practical knowledge is pleasing to people but a clever tongue is suspect. This is the reason that Cicero thought that moral philosophy was so important for an orator. Decorum becomes the guide to everything one says and does.
These above are broad topics which cover sweeping areas- philosophy, natural philosophy, logic, history, civil law....
Now Cicero discusses the arrangements of words. It consists of three parts:
1. find words with syllables which fit beginning syllables of other words as neatly as possible.
2. careful placement of words.
3. Periodic sentences have appropriate rhythm and cadence
1. However important a thought may be if expressed with words ill arranged, this will offend the ear and turn off the listener to the thought. Cicero hints that elisions were used in prose and in poetry. Contractions show a desire to have syllables fit together. Look at these:
multi modis for multis modis ( say these several times to hear the effect- Cicero preferred multi modis) palmi et crinibus for palmis et crinibus. There are numerous examples. Cicero suggests that words were contracted because they sounded better that way:
bellum was once duellum. Bellum sounds better. The “x” was removed from maxillae and it became malae. Cicero did not think that the “x” sounded very pleasant.
Cicero does not interpret purity of language in terms of consistency. He prefers custom which favors the ear. He prefers aufugit over abfugit. He prefers to soften the nasty sound of the letter “f”. At least he thought it was a nasty sound. But look how sensitive he was to the nuances of his language. He preferred insipientem over insapientem. Words beginning with “f” or “s”, the “i” of prefix in- is long, otherwise, it is short. If, Cicero says, you consult analogy, this is wrong, but if you consult the ear, it is correct. (Can you imagine how many histories, poems, epics, speeches Cicero heard and read to become so tuned to such nuances?)
The aspirant was not native to Latin and was avoided. So the name was Cetegus not Cethegus. The “h” sound is the aspirant. Cicero stuck to this for a long time out of respect for order and analogy. But he abandoned this system because that was not acceptable to people at large. But Cicero points out the oddity that the name Mato was still Mato and not Matho because this sounds better. Romans later must have changed their minds on this for in Martial the name is Matho. Or perhaps was Martial mocking the dude? Cicero suggests studying how common people spoke too. At all times use decorum.
Cicero is sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in modern times. In the area of prose Cicero apparently did not believe in hard and fast rules because hard and fast rules often lead to absurdities. Poetry had hard and fast rules concerning rhythm, prose does not. If prose did it would be poetry. Rules would restrict the approach a speech may need to take. It would impose limits to style and therefore thought. No wonder Cicero says that prose, the kind he discusses, is more difficult to create than poetry.
2. Word placement. Orator must consider use of similar case endings, contrary ideas, use rhythm in sentence. Here is a famous example: veni, vidi, vici.
This is perhaps too tricky but take a look. Cicero quotes a poem:
id quod scis prodest nihil, id quod nescis obest. ( That which you know does not help, that which you do not know is in the way.) If we scan this line we have:
spondee, spondee, dactyl, spondee, spondee, spondee. Now this would be inappropriate for prose. Look at how he adapts this to prose:
quod scis, nihil prodest, quod nescis, multum obest. If we scan this we have:
spondee, 1st Epitrite, molossus, choriambus.
The poem flows with six feet. His prose starts somewhat poetically but nihil prodest avoids building on the rhythm of quod scis. Then the molossus introduces a heavy tone. The choriambus at the end has to my ear a poetic feel. Part of the charm is poetic rhythm, part lies in that fact that the first half states the opposite of the second. The contrasted ideas set off against each other produces a rhythm of its own.
3. Period with appropriate rhythm.
Cicero realizes that some do not hear the cadence of thought and rhythm which make a period beautiful. (Think of a period as a sentence.) But HE does. I suspect that much of this rests on breadth of reading background and continued learning and study of a wide area over a number of years. Some people of Cicero’s time reject the idea of putting rhythm in prose because it was not done by ancient authors. But Cicero notes that they (ancients) payed attention to word selection, placement and clausulae (the rhythmical endings of clauses). If they had known of rounded periods, i.e applying rhythm to a whole sentence, they would have used it.
Cicero apparently looked at a sentence as part of a whole, as something to be heard and appreciated and understood in terms of the whole speech. In Cicero’s time, some, who praised ancient authors for lack of periodic polish, failed to notice that these same authors did not see the effort the ancients put into parts of a sentence (careful selection of words, careful placement of those words). These see the style they wish in ancient authors and ignore those aspects which support Cicero’s argument.
The crowd knows little of rhythm. But will hoot at a false quantity in a word. They know when something is lacking. A sentence left unpolished, dangles, leaves something out. Its incompleteness is dues to lack of rhythm. Lack of this also makes it less likely to be remembered.
1. What is the origin of rhythmical prose?
2. What is the cause?
3. What is its nature?
4. What is its use?
1. Isocrates is considered the originator. But the inventor was Thrasymachus.
2. Virtually demanded by desire for ear to hear pleasant sounds.
3. The nature of rhythmical prose is produced by rhythmical words, rhythmical arrangement of words, the speeding up and slowing down of what is said, endings of clauses with similar sounds. All of this and more is applied to a sentence as a whole in context of the entire speech. What rhythms are best for prose? By and large Cicero recommends all kinds of feet to avoid repetition. In a long speech with various moods, different feet must be used, those used in normal conversation and those sometimes from poetry. If these are mixed with care and caution the audience will scarcely notice the striving for pleasing effect.
Should rhythm be used in the beginning, middle and end of a sentence? Cicero says yes. The orator needs to be trained for this and needs to write a great deal. He says that at the beginning of the sentence, one must begin then to look at the end. Important not to use strong rhythmical ends too frequently. The idea is to let the rhythm pass and leave audience hungry for more.
4. What use? In section 227 Cicero says that the art of delivering a beautiful oration in an effective style is nothing else than presenting the best thoughts in choicest language. No thought is a quality thought unless fittingly and perfectly expressed. Nor does brilliant style appear unless words are carefully arranged. The use of feet makes prose resemble poetry. But rhythm must be used to speak elegantly. This prevents the speech from drifting vaguely. This brings force to the thought. It keeps the audience attentive and willing to hear what comes next.
Cicero continues:
The orator transposes words so that it does not seem intentional. Does not stuff in words to fill up the cracks. Does not cut up and weaken a sentence in pursuit of short rhythm. Does not use same form of rhythm without variations.
If someone prefers a loose style- fine. The beauty of the composition as a whole is lost but the charm of the piece remains.
To speak well knit rhythms without ideas is stupid. To present ideas without order and rhythm is to be speechless.
No comments:
Post a Comment