In Books 2 & 3 of Cicero’s De Oratore, I found his discussion of what it takes to be the “complete orator” to be very interesting. In particular, his reminding the reader of Socrates’ divorcing of the “tongue from the heart, a division certainly absurd, useless, and reprehensible” (209) made clear to me how and why rhetoric came to be known as the dappled discipline. Specifically, on (213-4), Cicero describes the real power of eloquence in that it touches on and affects many different things in life. He writes, eloquence “embraces the origin, the influence, the changes of all things in the world, all virtues, duties, and all nature, so far as if affects the manners, minds, and lives of mankind.” Further, he writes, “It can give an account of customs, laws, and rights, can govern a state, and speak of every thing relating to any subject whatsoever with elegance and force.” Cicero seems to be establishing a pretty high standard here for the complete orator being able to talk on any subject, yet he believes it is achievable so long as one takes her/his natural ability and moderate learning and develops it with constant practice (214). This practice, he believes (and this brings me to rhetoric as the dappled discipline) will help one develop the skills/knowledge and experience necessary to make the connections (interdisciplinary connections) between disparate subject matter areas, and how one develops this experience is through engaging oneself in the public realm. Through making this demand for an orator to be engaged with the public, Cicero seems to be presenting a more organic notion of the orator, one that is much different than Aristotle’s orator who relies on the topics for his arguments. Sure, Cicero had his commonplaces, but in order for an orator to truly understand them, s/he must understand the community in which the commonplaces operate (118), and the only way one can gain this understanding is through practical experience with the community. This engagement is what makes Cicero’s orator more organic as that person will be able to adapt/change with the community as it changes due to his/her dappled (interdisciplinary) understanding of the community.
One last thing, I also got the sense that Cicero had a “power over” as opposed to a “power with” conception of rhetoric. On (134), he writes that eloquence “can not only make him upright who is biased, or bias him who is steadfast, but can, like an able and resolute commander, lead even him captive who resists and opposes.” Similar to Aristotle, Cicero sees rhetoric as a way to achieve results for a leader, by powering over the opposition. What seemed strange for me as I read Books 2 & 3 is that I saw a lot of Isocrates in Cicero, and Isocrates was more of the “power with” school as opposed to the “power over.” I sense that Cicero had a humanist vision like Isocrates, yet because of the reality of Roman times in that one had to be able to defend himself against charges, Cicero recognized that “power over” was a better way to secure one’s life. So, in Cicero we saw an attempt to merge the ideal “power with” rhetoric with the more practical “power over.”