#classical rhetoric

Picta Dicta {Roman Roads Media Review}

    Recently we have begun delving into the meaning behind words with my younger son. As a struggling reader, as we have progressed in his abilities, he has begun  to question why a word is what it is. Why is this word assigned to that meaning? These are lots of great questions (I love how this boy’s mind works!) but it can be hard to keep up and get the answers he needs.When we were given the…

I will not lie to you and say that reading through De Oratore by Cicero was an easy task. It was actually very difficult to get through when I read it at the beginning of the semester. And to be completely forthcoming, we only read excerpts for this course, not the full text.

Cicero packs quite a bit of information, opinion, and witty gems into this piece on oratory and rhetoric, and you could spend your entire life (as some have) parsing through it and still probably find something new each time you read it. For that reason, I’m not going to attempt to discuss every one of Cicero’s points on rhetoric and oratory. I am, however, going to discuss my favorite takeaway from this piece: the relationship between knowledge and style.

An Intimate Relationship

While I don’t think you could say that Cicero’s main reason for writing De Oratore was to discuss the relationship between knowledge and speaking, he does still make a number of references to it in his piece. (Before moving forward, it should be noted that Cicero is making his points about this relationship in the context of his larger discussion of rhetoric and oratory. At the time of Cicero’s piece there were some who considered rhetoric and oratory to either simply be a natural ability that could not be taught and that needed no real knowledge or understanding of philosophy behind its words to make it successful. Or, alternatively, considered rhetoric and oratory to be an art that could be taught, but one that was all about style and was completely divorced from philosophy and knowledge. Although I will be discussing my understanding and interpretation of Cicero’s points, it’s important to at least mention the context in which Cicero was originally making these points.)

For it is from knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness, and unless there is such knowledge, well-grasped and comprehended by the speaker, there must be something empty and almost childish in the utterance.

For excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about.

In fact that favorite assertion of Socrates--that every man was eloquent enough upon a subject that he knew--has in it some plausibility but no truth: it is nearer the truth to say that neither can anyone be eloquent upon a subject that is unknown to him, nor, if he knows it perfectly and yet does not know how to shape and polish his style, can he speak fluently even upon that which he does know.

...no man can speak, without direst disgrace, on a subject which he has not mastered.

When I first read each one of these quotes, I was internally going, “Yes! Yes, Cicero!” In fact, each one is highlighted and has a little star sign next to it in my book.

Moving beyond my excitement, there are two main points that Cicero is making here:

No one can speak (and for modern times write or communicate) well on or about a subject that they do not have the knowledge to back their words up with.

If someone has knowledge regarding a particular subject, but doesn’t know how to communicate that knowledge, then they will not be able to speak (and/or write for modern times) well on or about it.

In essence, then, Cicero is saying that knowledge and speaking (and/or oratory and style) have an intimate relationship with one another. A relationship in which neither can succeed without the other. It’s not just about having the knowledge about a subject, but also about being able to communicate that knowledge. Just as being able to speak well doesn’t really mean anything if you don’t have any knowledge or facts to back up what you are saying. To use a well-known phrase, they are two sides of the same coin.

Thoughts and Musings

Now, for some of you, Cicero’s points may not be revolutionary, but in a small way for me they were.

I have always been a firm believer in the idea that you should never try to talk about something that you don’t really have a clue about. That belief doesn’t mean that I think you can’t have an opinion on something (even if you don’t know much about it), just that you probably shouldn’t be projecting it for the world if you don’t have the knowledge, information, or facts to back it up. Reading through Cicero’s points really validated this belief for me.

And I think that his points are still extremely valid for modern times, particularly given the current political climate in much of the world. (I know that I have now brought up politics in two consecutive posts, but unfortunately, it provides a number of great examples that illustrate the various points rhetorical thinkers were making.)

For example, a few months back, Donald Trump made some statements about his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act with his own healthcare policy if he were to become president. Unfortunately for Trump, his claims and policies were slammed from multiple sides as being “absurd” and impossible to implement. And the main reason cited for his claims being “absurd” was because the facts (i.e. knowledge) just didn’t back up what he was claiming (i.e. saying/speaking).