The good orator is eloquent and highly educated. It is argued whether the good orator is naturally inclined to eloquence or trained through education. "It is from knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness."(292) "Oratory requires science, and science requires style." (295) The good orator must have full knowledge of the subject they speak on and has gained insight into the characteristics of men. "The complete and finished orator is he who on any matter whatever can speak with fullness and variety." (297) "Should anyone wish to define in a comprehensive manner the complete and special meaning of the word, he will be an orator...whatever the topic will speak with knowledge charm and method" (298) In my opinion, the skilled orator becomes skilled after being educated in the subject as well as having a natural inclination for eloquence. I think both of these are equally important.

Eminence in all fields equals rhetorical virtue, which is rare in most instances. As stated in this passage:

"...and yet in this field of philosophy it is difficult to count how many men there have been, eminent for their learning and for the variety and extent of their studies, men whose efforts were devoted, not to one separate branch of study, but who have mastered everything they could whether by scientific investigation or by the methods of dialectic" (290).

By this he means that a great orator should have the ability to be able to multi-task and not just master his/her particular area of study, but should be capable of mastering them all dutifully if challenged. Anything less would be unorthodox.

I'll have to agree with Kelli that style is superior to overarching knowledge when describing a good orator. You don't have to know all the facts, as long as you can relay the gist of what you are trying to communicate in an effective manner that creates action, holds attention, and provokes thought. Sure, knowing much about numerous topics is definitely a crucial factor in effective oratory, but one must consider just how much attention an audience can pay before their eyes glaze over and minds begin to wander. To lay down technical fact after fact can be very distracting and difficult to absorb for the average listener, especially when the information being argued is intellectually specific and alludes to unknowns. "Good orators" of our day are not necessarily selected because they know everything, but because they can rely on the information gathered by their peers and subordinates in the academic, political and scientific fields. What matters most is how effective they are at translating this information to the audience when making an argument, which generally reaches the most amount of people when it is simplified. It takes a good orator to simplify complex topics in a clear way, and having a good knowledge of style is key to this end.

The most important rhetorical virtue is to have a wide education. He says, “non one should be numbered with the orators who is not accomplished in all those arts that befit the well-bred. For though we do not actually parade these in our discourse, it is none the less made clear to demonstration whether we are strangers to them or have learned to know them” (299). The good orator is one who is knowledgeable on all subjects and got that way by studying those subjects.

As I said in class, style and the ability to deliver a message well are essential elements in the makings of the ideal orator, and I think they have been underappreciated as such. Of course, what is said should be more important than the way it is spoken and should come from a well-educated and moral source. But style is the filter through which these ideas are seen and interpreted by the audience.

Knowledge does seem to prove to be an invaluable tool to a rhetorician, but what he does with that power seems to be even more important. As Ciciro points out, these are the tools to cure social ills "challenge the wicked man" or "defend yourself" (293) when needed. Therefore, I think an ethical understanding is necessary for a good rhetorician.

Cicero stresses the importance of knowledge and education in regards with the ability to be an effective and "virtuous" orator. According to Cicero the most important thing for rhetorical virtue is as much knowledge as a person can attain. I don't necessarily think that Cicero was saying that the only successful orators are those who know it all because that isn't obtainable. Rather, Cicero is saying that to know as much as you can about a wide array of subject matters will better you as an orator. Also, Cicero brings up the element of style, which as we discussed in class, hasn't been talked about much yet. I think Cicero's view of rhetoric as a science is a good insight into the importance of not only the knowledge that it takes to be a good orator but also the strategy one takes with the delivery. Perhaps the best quote to summarize this reading is when Cicero says, "Exposition demands both knowledge and style."

Although Crassus' vision of the perfect orator/statesman is repeatedly attacked for being nearly unobtainable, it is clearly Cicero's ideal that is being shared.

While knowledge is definitely central to this ideal -- as quoted previously, "knowledge of very many matters must be grasped, without which oratory is but an empty and ridiculous swirl of verbiage" -- I would venture to say that practice and training are at the center of the creation of the ideal orator. Knowledge is important, but given that Cicero then devotes much space to detailed rebuttals stating that complete knowledge is not necessary for good oratory (I know I'm jumping way ahead, but this is through pages 311-316), he seems to at least partly agree that thorough information on all subjects is not the foundation of rhetorical virtue.

Eloquence is praised as being imminently important, described by Crassus as a power "strong enough to gather scattered humanity into one place, or lead it out of its brutish existence in the wilderness up to our present condition of civilization" (293-194). But how is eloquence achieved? It requires that the speaker add "a certain humor, flashes of wit, the culture befitting a gentleman" as well as poise in "bodily carriage, gesture, play of features and changing intonation of the voice" (291). Some of these things can come from natural talent, but most of them require diligence in practicing the art of rhetoric. Practice improves the memory and the facility to recall quote and facts, and is how actors achieve the ability to control their gestures, facial expressions, and intonation. I would say, therefore, that the good orator is one that has the natural talent to start them on their path to eloquence, coupled with the responsibility and self-control to study and practice further.

I think Cicero would say that practice is the most important thing to becoming a good rhetor. Knowledge, skill, and talent, in any discipline, will come with immersing oneself in the practice of that discipline.

But let him be shut up in the sphere of daily intercourse and public life... let him press forward day and night in this single vocation... the young should be spurred on to severe application. [(231) ed.1]

'Cicero' means chick-pea. I have heard that he was told to change his name if he wanted to make it in politics. Cicero responded that he would make the name into one that people would no longer laugh at.

In De Oratore when Cicero is writing to his brother Quintus, he presents the importance of education to the orator. He states “that eloquence is dependent upon the trained skill of highly educated men” while his brother believes that the art of speaking comes from “natural talent” (290). Throughout this passage, Cicero argues that education is the most vital factor in the development of a “distinguished” orator (290). Cicero states how “many matters must be grasped [for] without [them] oratory is but an empty and ridiculous swirl of verbiage” (291). An excellent orator needs to have the ability to discuss and topic thrown his way, and in order to do so he needs to have a solid knowledge of many different subjects “for it is from knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness” (292).
After he discusses why an orator should study a multitude of subjects, Cicero goes on to explain the benefits of going on the rigorous journey to becoming a great orator. These “power[s]” include having the ability to “get a hold on assemblies of men”, “direct” [the audience’s] inclinations wherever the speaker wishes” or to “divert them from whatever he wishes” (293). Cicero convinces the reader of the multiple advantages of becoming a great orator, and he continues to stress that the most important aspect of having rhetorical virtue is having a great knowledge of the world to back up one’s ideas.

And I also went a little quote crazy.

Through the voice of Crassus, Cicero presents us with one vision of the ideal orator/statesman, clearly articulating a connection between the orator’s virtue and the stability of the state. The simple idea here is that citizens’ virtue, as upheld in good public discourse, can maintain a virtuous democracy, or, to borrow Cicero’s terms: “the wise control of the complete orator is that which chiefly upholds not only his own dignity, but the safety of countless individuals and of the entire state” (p. 294). Based on Crassus’s discussion of what the good orator should know, study, and be able to do, what do you think he believes most important to rhetorical virtue? Who is the good orator, and how did s/he get to be that way?

A discussion topic dealing with an author who asserts that the orator must be "complete in all points of merit, who has...attained a knowledge of all important subjects and arts" (292), carries with it expectations of the discussion leader that I may be less-than-fully-qualified to meet. However, Cicero long ago had his head nailed to the wall, so perhaps his judgement of what makes a good orator will not be transferred to this discussion leader. In short, I want to preface this post by saying Crassus would probably consider me eligible for "universal derision" after reading it, so please, ignore my possibly "thin and bloodless style."

Cicero, through Crassus, makes it abundantly clear that rhetorical virtue requires knowledge and style above anything else. These are broad, general terms that essentially mean rhetorical virtue can only exist when it is clear that the orator is not blatantly bullshitting the public. Rhetorical virtue is possible only when the orator is virtuous in his foundations; that is to say, when his tongue emits utterances that the brain of the speaker has pre-qualified and validated as legitimate instances of comprehension by the speaker. "Excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about" (296). Many people possess vast reservoirs of knowledge, but appear not to because they are incapable of fluently, fluidly communicating this knowledge (I have neither knowledge nor the ability to communicate what I don't have, so at least I don't have to live with the regret of lacking the orator's whole package on account of one missing piece). The barrier between those who are knowledgeable and those who sound knowledgeable is a "peculiar possession, a style that is harmonious, graceful, and marked by a certain artistry and polish" (296). This possession of style allows the orator to "state it better and more gracefully than the actual discoverer and the specialist" (296). This style, however, seems to be something entirely separate from knowledge attainable through practice, for there is nothing peculiar about training one's mind. Rhetorical virtue and the good orator, then, emerge when the intellectually abstract and "the language of everyday life" (291) are synthesized into a science. This branch of science, subsuming nothing less than "the whole range of human nature" (297) and providing tools sufficiently powerful to gain "profound insight into the characters of men" (297), can allow us to climb out quite far on one of the three branches of philosophy, what Crassus defines as "human life and conduct" (299). The best orator understands human nature as fully as s/he does the knowledge that s/he possesses. They come to be this way by attending a College of the Liberal Arts. The good orator is observant, alert, broad-minded, and unintimidated by those who claim to know everything, because if they really did, they would have already made it apparent through their oratory upon the subject rather than through statements referring to the condition of their knowledge. The good orator speaks with "fullness and variety" because he has experienced, and learned from, a full life not lacking in variety.

I think Cicero believes that knowledge and education are most important to rhetorical virtue. According to Cicero, "knowledge of very many matters must be grasped, without which oratory is but an empty and ridiculous swirl of verbiage (291)". Cicero believes that if an orator wants to "inflame or even repress feeling and passion" then he/she must know the subject matter from which he/she is speaking. He believes that an orator must make a "careful search into all those theories respecting the natural characters and the habits of conduct of mankind".With knowledge comes a vast number of other traits that a orator must possess, such as the ability to "regulate the expression, the voice, and the movements of the body (291)". The ability to do these things and to understand human emotions and to play off of the emotions of your audience will allow an orator to add a sense of sincerity to his oratory.

According to Cicero, an orator "is he who on any matter whatever can speak with fullness and variety (297), and "that eloquence is dependent upon the trained skill of highly educated men" (290). A good orator has studied and practiced the art of oratory and has a full understanding of the subject he speaks about.

I think I went a little quote crazy in my discussion. Cicero places a great deal of importance on all of the qualities that a good orator should possess and I wanted to try and put the important ones into my discussion. Also - what does Cicero mean by "eloquence"?