The Importance Of Rhetoric In Cicero's De Oratory

Throughout the course of ancient rhetoric, different philosophers and sophists created images of what was an ideal orator. Some emphasized on the delivery of content, others discussed the necessity of the oratory skills, and knowing what is ethical and moral. Rhetoricians such as Cicero, would further discuss the importance of the orator’s education, and the best methods of persuasion. Others like Quintilian would focus on the rhetoric, the art of three appeals, and the method versus the content. Overall, throughout the course of time, the ideal orator slowly evolved, and changed into that of the perfect speaker. For this paper, I will discuss that which is said in Cicero’s De Oratory and Quintilian’s Institute of Oratory, and elaborate on
their definitions of the ideal orator. When Cicero began writing his De Oratory, he took influence from Plato’s Dialogues. First, when it came to that of the orator, he discussed the importance of their education. Orators should develop a base line understanding of the practice of rhetoric, and how even with prominent men in all fields, there isn’t a great understand on oratory. As Cicero saw it, Oratory was attractive, but a difficult subject to study. Therefore, only skilled young orators would listen to Greek orators and teachers. Furthermore, Cicero saw that orators must have a knowledge of several things, and therefore able to carry conversation with a variety of audiences. Also, students should possess the ability to bring in charm and humor when they speak, and have the readiness to respond to attacks and deliver upon them. Furthermore in De Oratory, when it came to the delivery of the oratory, he put emphasis on a different skill: the ability to deliver with control.
Essentially what we know today as body language. Next, the orator should learn to expand their memories. In order to respond to a variety of conversation, they should be able to recall histories of the past, as well as know laws of the society. The orator should be one who is able to combine a variety of things, and in order to be successful, they needed to maintain all these areas in order to achieve persuasion. Moving on from the orator’s education, Cicero emphasized the responsibility of the orator. They must be knowledgeable in many important subjects, otherwise their speeches would appear without flow and eloquence. He saw that this essentially was an impossible task, but put it as it’s better to know little about a lot of things, than to know a lot about one thing. It was the moral duty of the orator to be knowledgeable on a vast array of subjects. If the audience would discover that they did not know, then they would lose their appeal, and be seen as untrustworthy, and incapable of
persuasion. In order to achieve persuasion, Cicero noted that the orator should have knowledge in any subject. They can have the skills to be technical, but they should place emphasis on moral science as well. It is important to know what is just and unjust, and more so in the way humans interacted with one another. This can be seen when Crassus and Antonius debate on what can be considered a natural talent for an orator and what is not natural. When it came to knowledge of an oratory, sometimes having the ability to speak like they know about the subject is better than to know about the subject and possess no skills in speaking on such subject. Through this, it was difficult to become a great orator, and only those who had a stuck to the strict traditional oratory would be able to accomplish such. Comparing Cicero texts to that of Quintilian, both place value on the orator’s education. Quintilian saw the necessity of orators being knowledgeable in a variety of subjects as well, and that education should start at a young age. He emphasized that a child’s life should not be without education, and that the sooner one started in learning the art of speaking, the better would be at speaking a variety of topics. To him, the mind was just as important as the body, and in order to master the three arts, a speaker must be well versed. When it came to considering rhetoric as an art, one must divide it into three arts: practical, productive, and theoretical. Rhetoric uses all three of these areas, and it was p to the orator to properly utilize them effectively when using rhetoric. Throughout Institute of Oratory, Quintilian hits off the use of three. He broke rhetoric down into that of the art, the artist, and its work. The orator should know the three types of oratory: panegyric, forensic, and deliberative. Next, he used Aristotle’s three artistic appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. When mastering the uses of three, the orator could arrange his arguments in a rhetorical manner, and easily speak to audiences. After the threes, Quintilian stressed how the audience plays a role for the orator. They have power and rank, which will not matter to that of a verse speaker. A great orator will be able to employ a variety of methods to those whom he is speaking too. Lastly, Quintilian hits on that an orator must be a good man. In order to achieve the status of a good man, it is essential to know law and the ability to advise the state. Like in De Oratory, the orator should be able to draw from the past and present examples. To take it a step further, the orator should recognize soul in situations. As he saw it, the orator needs to put time and energy into his cases. The importance lies in the ability to not neglect the interest of the case, and to not seek to win his audience by neglecting what is in the actual case. As put, the importance of morality plays a huge part in what makes an orator ideal and those who are not. To Quintilian, only a good man could be an orator. This is where we see a difference from Cicero’s opinion on the orator being a good man. Quintilian believed that an evil man could not be an orator. Furthermore, a good orator is personally good, but not necessarily good publicly. Comparing the two readings, both stress the importance of education of the orator.
The ideal orator should be well versed in education from a young age. Only that who is educated will have the capacity to be a good speaker. Furthermore, an ideal orator should be able to utilize the various skills necessary to speaking. They should be able to speak to the audience, be able to recall histories from the past, and to be good. Expanding off the differences, Cicero viewed the art of oratory more as an art of science, whereas Quintilian did to an extent, but not so much. Oratory cannot simply fit into the category of science, however, the study of rhetoric and the art of oratory can. Both saw the importance of being able to move between topics, and that orators should be able to speak on a variety of topics. They saw it better to be able to be versed in argument than to speak only on a certain subject. De Oratory and Institute of Oratory both discussed what an ideal oratory is. They have skills needed, the value placed on education, and that of morality. Orators are modest in speech, and see the need to exercise their skill in order to become masters in their art. More so, the delivery of the content to certain audience needed to be changed to a different audience, and an ideal orator should be able to distinguish that
difference.