English 622: Classical Rhetoric

The first aspect of Cicero’s On Oratory and Orators that struck me, was the concept of the perfect orator, which is a person “who shall have abilities to deliver opinions on both sides of a question on all subjects, after the manner of Aristotle, and, from a knowledge of the precepts of that philosopher, to deliver two contradictory orations on every conceivable topic, or shall be able, after the manner of Arcesilas or Carneades, to dispute against every proposition that can be laid down, and shall unite with those powers rhetorical skill, and practice and exercise in speaking, he will be the true, the perfect, the only orator. (214-215). One of the reasons I latched onto this passage in Book III is because it seems to begin to tie together the varying definitions of rhetoric that we have been receiving over the duration of the semester. We see the sophistic practice of being able to argue both sides of an issue, which Aristotle further expands on in On Rhetoric mixed with the Socratic version of philosophical version of rhetoric that Plato has offered.

The second reason that I latched onto the above passage is the implied emphasis on “rhetorical skill,” which seems to indicate the importance of delivery. As stated earlier in Book III “every speech consists of the matter and the language, the language can have no place if you take away the matter, nor the matter receive any illustration if you take away the language” (197). The emphasis that is being place on presentation is interesting. Most of the works we have studied prior to the Roman authors seems to either skip delivery all together or, as the case is with Aristotle, spend very little time address how to deliver a speech once a rhetor finds a probable truth and has arranged the speech appropriately. In Cicero, however, “eloquence is one of the most eminent virtues; and though all the virtues are in their nature equal and alike, yet one species in more beautiful and noble than another; as is this power, which comprehending a knowledge of things, expresses the thoughts and purposes of the mind in such a manner, that it can impel the audience whithersoever it inclines its force; and, the greater is its influence, the more necessary it is that it should be united with probity and eminent judgment” (207).

What I’m gathering, so far, is that the Romans seem to have realized that logic and truth may not be enough to convince an audience to accept their opinions. Instead, the rhetor must spend an equal amount of time preparing the language of the speech, where the emphasis of tone should be place, and what physical motions should accompany the eventual speech. From composing, arranging, and delivering the speech then, the style the rhetor attaches to the presentation of the speech with directly contribute to the success of the speech and reputation of the orator.