The dialogue with Crassus expresses some classical tenets of civic humanism, echoing some of what we heard in Isocrates’s work: people differ from the animals in their ability to use language; people’s facility with language makes them disposed towards creating communities; the quality of discourse in a society (the “judgment and wisdom of the perfect order”) determine the quality of the state (p. 14). We also get from Scaevola a counterargument to this position: orators cause as much harm as good to the state; communities are formed by powerful individuals, not by discursive exchange (pp. 14-15); the good orator need not know anything of rhetoric, only truth (p. 16). Crassus responds to this latter (very Platonic) argument by saying that the orator needs to have knowledge in order to be effective and virtuous, but Crassus’s definition of knowledge is different from Plato’s. For Crassus, knowledge consists in vast education in law and letters and the ability to “speak on all subjects with variety and copiousness”(p. 21). In the end, Crassus decides that the orator must have both knowledge and the ability to use persuasive language. Scaevola sez that Crassus has both refuted and conceded to his argument. On p. 25, the conversation turns away from the dispute over whether or not the orator must know truth (as Socrates sez), but Scaevola’s conclusion is a bit inconclusive. How could Crassus both concede to and refute Scaevola’s claims? Is Crassus agreeing with and disagreeing with Socrates (Plato)? If so, how does he manage such a complicated task? If not, what can we conclude about the difference between a foundationalist like Socrates and a civic humanist like Crassus?
Maybe I'm missing something, but are Crassus and Scaevola not at least in some sense talking around each other? Crassus' view of the 'holistic orator' seems to place great value in the content as well as presentation of a speaker (thus making knowledge/techne invaluable). Scaevola's Socratic point of view makes a sharper distinction between rhetoric (as mere eloquence, piled on top of rather than essential to the content) and wisdom, the latter being able to stand on its own. So in a way, for both of them the element without which a speaker cannot be great lies outside the purview of rhetoric per se, although Crassus stretches his depiction of an orator to try and include other knowledge. The only distinction, I felt, was that for Crassus 'eloquence' was an additional but necessary component, while Scaevola treats it as superfluous (and from his tone, he might be implying that in fact it actually impedes the truth).
I think Crassus comes very close to all together agreeing with Socrates because he has a similar view that orators are the best thing in society. Crassus' counterpart Scaevela on the other hand, reminds Crassus that as lovely as his thought seemes, it is the wise and brave, not the eloquent, who win wars and write laws and maintain the government.
What I find confusing is the god-like mentality Crassus makes of an orator being well-read and educated of many subjects which enables orators and their study of philosophy to be the most important aspect of society in terms of what they contribute.
Although Crassus provides examples of previous Greek philosophers he studied whom were excellent in their own work such as Plato, I think Crassus still falls short just as Socrates did in proving that what exactly are the esstential products of oratory that the world would somehow be in total chaos if they were not in societies and/or in other arenas of public life to provide their services.
At least with Isocrates he focus of what type of students he wanted to produce and how it would help them in the future outside of a world of endless discussions about what is truth.
So Scaevola, like Socrates, seems to think the two components of "good" oratory are pursuit of truth and sufficient wisdom/knowledge/techne. I think Crassus is agreeing with this latter point, but until you break down the definitions of wisdom, knowledge, and techne, you can't see that Crassus and Scaevola are actually making different points within their agreement. Crassus wants the techne; Scaevola wants the wisdom. I think?? Is this another "make sure you define your terms" lesson? Then again, I could be completely off too.
I agree with you on this. Crasssus wants all three though, and Scaevola wants the wisdom. I think they agree with each other more than they let out to, but are just arguing the situation differently. When you really think about it, they are both saying the same thing, just going about explaining it differently.
My first thought after reading 50 pages of "On Oratory": Someone needs to end his love affair with the comma. Seriously.
My second thought after reading 50 pages of "On Oratory": Scaelova raises a series of interesting claims on page 15. He seems to argue that wisdom will trump oratory skills any day of the week; plenty of wise men have lacked oratory skills, and plenty of good orators have done not-so-good things. (That's what I got out of it, anyway.) But Crassus seems to place the value of oratory not on the possibility of reaching the truth, but on the orator's ability to get things done. He focuses on what the orator must master in order to be a good orator, not in order to pursue the truth. Scaelova's position that orators have an obligation to pursue the truth does smack of Socrates; maybe Crassus has a Socratic ideal in mind (that is, maybe the good, effective orator is also a pursuer of the truth), but it wasn't clear from this section.
I will agree with the last two posts that I was a bit confused after reading the section. I think it is hard to tell if Crassus is agreeing or disagreeing with Socrates. I agree that Scaevola is confusing oratory with philosophy, but I am confused about how philosophy can be seen as a way to understand other subjects. I will need to be explained this a little better in class tomorrow because I'm not sure what exactly the differences here are either.
This is tricky, because we lack the narrow definitions that Socrates uses, so it does appear that Crassus could be both agreeing with and refuting.
1).His assertion that the eloquence of orators can touch emotions so powerfully that they set actions into motion: This sentiment can both agree with and refute Scaevola, who claims that orators can do damage through their empty persuasions. It affirms that orators can do this kind of harm when their speech is used without adequate knowledge, but it confirms that orators have a value distinct from people in other disciplines. I think the idea that a person more accomplished in the study of science or math or art, but without the ability to speak elegantly, would fare more poorly than a person with a broad, cursory knowledge but the ability to speak well goes along this same lines. It refutes Scaevola by demonstrating that speaking well accomplishes more, but it also supports his view by illustrating how this might lead to something other than truth.
2). Scaevola talks about the 'right' knowledge being knowledge about what is good and bad in life. I think this is where the fine line is drawn. Crassus believes that the pursuit of knowledge does accomplish this. It's a tricky line. Is knowledge the good to pursue or is there a good knowledge that you must pursue?
I too found this reading to be rather complex, so I hope what I'm about to say is correct:
Crassus agrees and disagrees with Scaevola’s claims because they are arguing on different planes. Scaevola uses examples of past leaders to show that orators can do just as much harm as good, while Crassus instead talks of the qualities that the ideal "accomplished and complete orator" should have and uses examples of good leaders to back his claim (p. 21). Neither party accepts the others claim as valid proof.
However, Crassus' argument is a bit shaky. On p. 24 Crassus says that one cannot be called an orator if they are not "thoroughly accomplished in all branches of knowledge requisite for a man of good breeding." On the previous page, he stated than an orator must master "the part of philosophy, therefore, regarding life and manners," which will allow him to "adorn his eloquence" on other subjects about which he has not learned (p. 23). Although I'm sure that philosophy regarding life and manners are important to a man of good breeding, it cannot be the only thing one should understand in order to be an ideal orator.
Once again, I hope what I'm saying jives with what Cicero is trying to showing us. It is midnight and few students have posted....does this mean everyone is as confused as I am?
I don't know if anyone else had trouble following this text.Please correct me if this seems like what I'm saying is completly off. In my opinion Crassus makes a good point when he says that an orator must have knowledge and the ability to use persuasive language, but his idea of knowledge would be something more like pandering to Socrates. when Scaevola says that a good orator needs not know anything of rhetoric, only truth. It seems to me that he is conffusing oratory with philosophy. I also don't see how Crassus concedes and refutes Scaevolas claims, if he does, can someone explain this to me in a way that a biology major can understand.
A foundationalist like Socrates focus is on finding and establishing a truth, not on oratory,because only with the persuit of truth can one do good and civic humanists seem to focus on the benefit of the art of discourse because they believe that if a person wants to be a good orator then he has to be good and want to be honoured by others.
The problem i had with this text was that it made sense when i read it, but i dont know that i could tell you how or why. What i am left with is that while Socrates places the most imporatance upon seeking afer the Truth, the civic humanists(CH) are more concerned with elegance and natural talent in oratory. The text seem very similar and as such makes it that much harder to recognize the differences. surely it will make sense in class tomorrow :D
I found this text to be extremely confusing. Cicero contradicted his beliefs throughout the text. I think a big problem was the language difference when it got translated to English. The way he wrote it was just confusing. The commas need to go. He sites Socrates for both agreeing and disagreeing arguments. I think I just need to talk about this in class!