While the question of what makes up the style of rhetoric is a major part of these passages, I don’t think it is the part the class will wish to discuss. It appears that the other major question being observed in these passages: “Who is the best orator.” To answer this question, Cicero, Philodemus, and Quintilian provide several examples for our examination.
Conley states that Cicero saw a good speaker as also being a ‘good man;” however, he does not go so far as to point out that good speaker must be a good man. In Cicero’s Brutus, Brutus and Crassus debate the qualities of the speaker. Here Cicero clearly identifies the best orator as one who “instruct[s] his listener, give[s] him pleasure, [and] stir[s] his emotions.” There is no mention throughout the rest of piece regarding the “innate” goodness of the speaker, only his effectiveness. The piece goes on to discuss the Attic speakers, and concludes, once again, that the best speakers inspire and connect with the listeners. I also had difficulty finding any direct reference to the necessary “goodness” of the speaker in De Inventione or De Partitone Oratoria.
Philodemus picks up the discussion in his On Rhetoric. Philodemus is clear that the best speaker is NOT necessarily the best man. He states that “it is plain to all that many are capable rhetors, but bad morally.” He goes on to point out that “It would be well if the statesmen studied philosophy in order that he might be more actively good;” Philodemus would like the speaker to be a good man, but makes it clear that this is optional.
For Quintilian there can be no orator with a “good man.” Quintilian begins his reasoning with the statement that “vileness and virtue cannot jointly inhabit in the selfsame heart…and secondly, if intelligence is to be concentrated on such a vast subject as eloquence it must be free from all other discretion.” Quintilian does not seem to believe that an evil man is able to focus on begin eloquent while maintaining evil aims. Quintilian does at one point go so far as to concede that a “bad man has been discovered who is endowed with the highest eloquence.” Quintilian, however, simply states that “I shall none the less deny he is an orator. He continues, at length, to point out the “delusion that eloquence can be combined with vice.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think I've finally decided that it is not the "good man" who is necessarily the most moral orator ("good men" being not only "optional" but nearly non-existent)- but the honest man: the man who is willing to tell the truth even when it's not what the audience wants to hear.
ReplyDeleteIn Rhetoric In the European Tradition, Thomas M. Conley tells us that there was a point in the Medieval period in which "oratory of public celebration [was] seen as mere entertainment" (61)...
the first thing I thought was "Ah ha, finally,the origins of stand-up!"
Then I realized that some of our best "rhetors" today are our comedians, because they are the only ones who can get away with being honest.
I don't think a "good man who is skilled in speaking" could exist during these times, or for that matter, even today. This is concept is similar to stating that there are honest lawyers in the world. The nature of the medium of rhetoric (in the venue of the courtroom and political forums) is ultimately to persuade the audience to a desired verdict or point-of-view, which may inevitably lead the orator to “skew” the truth or manipulate the composition to suit their own desired outcome. Now, I’m not saying that a morally centered orator could not exist; I’m just saying that it is an anomaly due to the nature of the field. I’m with Quintilian on the matter of “vileness and virtue cannot jointly inhabit in the selfsame heart” because the orator is benefiting in some way (selfishly) by the outcome of the case or topic at hand. This competitive realm breeds manipulation by the nature of the field. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rhonda that the most moral rhetor is probably the most honest; however, I wonder if they are necessarily the "best" rhetors. As a rule, society seems to dislike being told the truth....
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm being a Pollyanna here, but I get a sense that there was some expectation that the study of rhetoric (and the other arts) was assumed to improve the character of the one who studied. So training in rhetoric would have involved training in logic and in ethics, maybe coming together to create a more moral person.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Cicero equated "good" with "well-educated". Arguably, the best speaker could only be one who was trained and put his skills into practice. It would support Cicero as an elitist, and also echo modern sentiments regarding some of our modern politicians. We certainly praise some public figures more than others and - even though the opportunity was not available to most of us - applaud (and automatically give authority to) those among them who attended the big name Ivy League schools.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think the worst people are the best at rhetoric/manipulation. People like Cicero wanted to believe that a good person was naturally a better speaker than someone of questionable character, but sometimes evil can be an incredible motivator. Johanna definitely hit the nail on the head when she said that we give more authority to those who have attended Ivy League schools. In reality, we are applauding those who have deep pockets, which in most cases, are the only ones capable of footing the bill for an Ivy League Education. I would take this one step further by pointing out that a British accent usually carries more authority as well. Even though many of the Greeks hoped that truth would win an argument, it is still true that more often than not, the best manipulator wins.
ReplyDelete