In this last section, after briefly touching on the virtues of style and delivery, Crassus returns to the character of the orator and the scope of education needed in order to make one a good orator. In fact, he even goes so far as to say that a beautiful style of writing won’t get one very far—it will only help the orator to avoid ridicule (p. 206); one’s entire life and education contribute to her success as an orator (p. 207). Throughout this last dialogue, Crassus continually promises to discuss the techniques of beautiful stylistic composition, but he also continually digresses into topics like the philosophical schools (pp. 210-214), or the vast knowledge requisite to a good orator (pp. 227-8). Is Crassus denigrating the study of stylistic ornament here? Is he placing that study within a larger conception of what makes a good orator?
I like the comparison to the article given to us about how to get an education in college, it fits for me. It feels as though a good orator needs much more than just the basic x, y, z skills that are taught in order to perform his job to Crassus' standards. But even Crassus doesn't follow his foundational x, y, z rules... I find it confusing at times.
amy_lee
Crassus' underlying philosophy might just be reflected in our modern writing education. We're taught a sort of eloquence in writing apart from eloquence-as-flowery language, as the term could be interpreted. Rather than that, it's more like an eloquence-in-simplicity. Minimalist. Clear, concise prose...etc. Crassus seems wary of any style overcoming substance, but it also looks like he's more worried about the flowery prose that could easily steer people in the wrong direction. And we're still pretty much opposed to that, these days, in writing classes (though it hasn't always been that way in the time between).
Crassus' opinions remind me of the article we read in class last week about how to get the most out of college. Crassus seems to be similar to the author of that article. College will teach you lots of technical things that may or may not help you in the real world, just as a rhetoric teacher will teach a student good style but it will only help them avoid ridicule. Crassus seems to take the more holistic approach which i think relates to the author of the article suggesting things like studying abroad and reading Gorgias. I'll have to admit though I do agree with the above post. I did find Crassus hard to understand. However, I don't see anything wrong with Crassus taking the holistic approach.
Crassus “would not have ‘beautifully’, ‘pleasantly’” or like adjectives applied to his speeches if he could help it; he would rather “have the exclamation, ‘nothing can be better’” (221). Although his discourse is ostensibly a lesson on how to beautify one’s oratory with flourishing language, he reveals his opinion of this subject both by his light and insubstantial treatment of it and the topics to which he continually digresses. Crassus doesn’t find embellishment a bad thing, but rather a flavor enhancer like sugar. While it adds nicely to a solid argument, without the mental satiety brought about by content, embellishment is empty and almost sickeningly, unpleasantly sweet (220). He is rather dismissive of the learning one needs for this: he encourages study of grammar, wide reading, and practice of delivery (203) but calls this surface linguistic elegance no art at all, but rather something that can be acquired by mere practice (219).
What Crassus really wants from an orator is a much greater, holistic wisdom, and this is initially disclosed in his commentary on the limitations of eloquence in speech. Clean presentation is not, as some rhetoric teachers profess, the central tenet of oratory but rather only sufficient to avoid ridicule (206). Those in the forum who use nothing but rhetorical appeal and emotional exaggeration to win on behalf of their clients he calls undignified and vile (218). Yet early on he concedes that a subject and the ways in which it is elucidated are in their nature incapable of separation (197). Crassus really wants young students to focus on their mental development, and sets ambitious expectations for lifelong study of various writings and fields (227). He seems to believe that granted this maturation, the natural talent of orators will manifest itself inevitably with experience; rather than there being a small-minded set of principles from which one’s speaking should stem, he believes that eloquence embodies and reflects the unique soul of its orator (201). While he dislikes empty panderers with great vehemence, Crassus wishes for students to pursue eloquence within the framework of the others things they study. As an example he mentions that reading, reflection, and practice will lead an orator to understand philosophy better, and outargue, a philosopher who merely pursues his limited field (214). These types he criticizes by picking on Socrates, saying that they violate natural unity by trying to break apart Truth and rhetoric like a heart and tongue (208). I don’t think Crassus has anything against eloquent speech whatsoever, but must rather be more boldly critical of the notion that it should be one’s primary pursuit; thus, while setting out to supplement Antonius’ exposition on the parts of an argument, he refutes the underlying principles to which Antonius adhered.
I think Crassus is advocating substance over style. I would compare it to a building with a lovely façade. A building can look great from the outside, but you might walk through the doors and discover that it's a squalid dump. Its presentation is enticing, but once you enter, there's nothing of value there. If the façade of the speech is the style in which it is delivered, then Crassus wants the orator to get past the style and get to substance. The façade is important if you want people to be receptive to what you want to say (people would hesitate to enter a building that looks like it should be condemned), but there must be something behind it. The ornamentation of a speech has value--the orator wants to avoid ridicule, after all, and he wants people to listen--but eloquence is merely one part of a larger and more complicated package. It is one aspect of a speech that an orator must keep in mind, but eloquence alone will not make an orator great.
"fundamentals are the building blocks for fun." It's a cheesy statement, but I think it is one that Crassus would champion. He believes that eloquence should be a product of diligent study of various subjects, not specific study of eloquence. Crassus argues that eloquence is the egg, not the chicken.
And in response to whether or not Crassus is practicing what he preaches, I think that when the intellectuals of the time spoke with one another and not in front of a crowd, they would speak in a different manner. By doing this, maybe they communicated more effectively or just enjoyed discussing at length these topics with other intellectuals and therefore got verbally carried away.
two things i do not like -- crassus tells us to be clear in our delivery and consise with our sentance structure. NEITHER of which he does. It makes me wonder if this structure was short in latin what a long sentance would be. then on page 205 when he explicitly says to 'communicate or explain w/o any ambiguous word or phrase, not [to] make our sentences to long' (see even there i had to add a word for clarity) His digression from the topic does not necessarilly defame what it is he's trying to talk about for me, it mearly keeps him from my list of the greats. I prefer/understood the Socratic method of talking specifically about x, y, and z (and the speaker telling me that we are talking about xy and z) much better than crassus' method of dancing around the subject for nearly 300 pages
I definitely see your point that he is not necessarily doing what he says to do, but I like the idea of an orator having a wide span of knowledge. They can then see how everything connects to each other to see a bigger picture - which gives a clearer picture of reality and also gives them an advantage over a specialized expert. It's hard to do this with the whole X,Y, and Z.
I think that it hards to get around the fact that you have to have a certain amount of style and persuasiveness when it comes to oratory which is why Crassus gives it some lip service.
"One’s entire life and education contribute to her success as an orator" (p. 207). With this I agree. I think the dialogue shows that Crassus is not 100% certain of what he says is required to be a good orator. His rule of 'being clear in delivery and choose the best words' do not necessarily contradict the quote at the top. I agree with both statements; rambling is not an favourable means of communication if precision can accomplish the same result. I think Crassus means that one should take all of their experiences and education to form eloquent oratory. And sure, living your life sitting at a desk, trying to find the most beautiful words, line after line... without actually living and experiencing the world will likely not help the 'orator.' Therefore, I think Crassus wants the orator to live life, observe life, experience life, get the most out of life... and along that journey, record the events experienced. Lets all go buy journals.