De Oratore ("The orator") is a discourse on rhetoric written by Cicero in 55 BC. It contains the first known description of the method of loci, a mnemonic technique. Rhetoric from Greek ρήτωρ, rhêtôr, orator) is the art or technique of persuasion, usually through the use of language. ... Marcus Tullius Cicero (IPA: ;) (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was an orator and statesman of Ancient Rome, and is generally considered the greatest Latin orator and prose stylist. ... Centuries: 2nd century BC - 1st century BC - 1st century Decades: 100s BC 90s BC 80s BC 70s BC 60s BC - 50s BC - 40s BC 30s BC 20s BC 10s BC 0s BC Years: 60 BC 59 BC 58 BC 57 BC 56 BC 55 BC 54 BC 53 BC 52... The method of loci or Ars memoriae (art of memory) is a technique for remembering which has been practiced since Classical times. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...

Book One

• The first of three books addressed to Cicero's brother Quintus.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (IPA: ;) (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was an orator and statesman of Ancient Rome, and is generally considered the greatest Latin orator and prose stylist. ... Quintus (the fifth, see Quintus (name)) may refer to: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I) Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (II) Quintus Antistius Adventus Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c. ...

Introduction

• Cicero begins his book by addressing this as a conversation to his brother. He continues on explaining his circumstances in life while reflecting on the lives of the people of the State.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (IPA: ;) (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was an orator and statesman of Ancient Rome, and is generally considered the greatest Latin orator and prose stylist. ...

Education of the orator

• Cicero explains that he wants to write something more refined and mature than what he had previously published in his younger and more immature days. He tells his brother that based on previous conversations with each other, they differ on the importance of eloquence - whether it is natural ability or something that needs to be taught.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (IPA: ;) (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was an orator and statesman of Ancient Rome, and is generally considered the greatest Latin orator and prose stylist. ...

Great Orators

• Cicero questions why, since there are so many men with exceptional abilities, there are so few exceptional orators. He states that there are many examples of war leaders, and will continue to be throughout history, but only a handful of great orators.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (IPA: ;) (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was an orator and statesman of Ancient Rome, and is generally considered the greatest Latin orator and prose stylist. ...

Eminence in all fields

• There have been countless men who have become eminent in philosophy because they have studied the matter thoroughly, either by scientific investigation or using dialectic methods. Each person who has studied philosophy has become eminent in their individual subject matter, which includes oratory. It is the study of oratory, however, that has had the smallest number of distinguished men, even smaller in number than those who study poetry. Cicero finds this amazing as the other arts are usually found in hidden or remote sources; whereas, all of oratory is public and in plain view to mankind, making it easier to learn.

Oratory is an attractive but difficult study

• Cicero claims that in Athens, "where the supreme power of oratory was both invented and perfected," no other study of the arts has a more vigorous life than the art of speaking. After peace had been established, it seemed as though everyone wanted to begin learning the eloquence of oral rhetoric.

• After first trying rhetoric without training or rules and using only natural skill, young orators listened and learned from Greek orators and teachers, and soon were much more enthusiastic for eloquence. Young orators learned, through practice, the importance of variety and frequency of speech. In the end, orators were awarded with popularity, wealth, and reputation.

• Cicero then claims that oratory fits into more arts and areas of study than people might think. This is the reason why this particular subject is such a difficult one to pursue. Students of oratory must have a knowledge of many matters in order to have successful rhetoric. They must also form a certain style through word choice and arrangement. Students must also learn to understand human emotion so as to appeal to their audience. This means that the student must, through his style, bring in humor and charm - as well as the readiness to deliver and respond to an attack.

• Oratory continues to be difficult in that a student must have a significant capacity for memory - they must remember complete histories of the past, as well as of the law. Cicero continues his description of oratory's difficulties when he says that in order to be a good orator, a speaker must deliver with control - using gestures, playing and expressing with features, and changing the intonation of his voice. In summary, oratory is a combination of many things, and to succeed in maintaining all of these qualities is a great achievement. This section marks Cicero's standard canons for the rhetorical composing process.

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Style
4. Memory
5. Delivery

Responsibility of the Orator

• Orators must have a knowledge in all important subjects and arts. Without the knowledge, an orator's speech will be empty and without beauty and fullness. The term "orator" in itself holds a responsibility for the person to profess eloquence, and seems to create an unspoken promise that the orator will treat every subject with distinction and knowledge. Cicero acknowledges that this is a practically impossible task, but that the Greeks, after dividing the arts, paid more attention to the portion of oratory that is concerned with the law, courts, and debate, and therefore left these subjects for orators in Rome.

Date, scene, and persons

Cicero tells a story that has been related to him by Cotta, of a group of men who came together to discuss the crisis and general decline of politics, and what they should do about the decay. One member, Scaevola, wants to imitate Socrates as he appears in Plato's Phaedrus. Crassus replies that instead they will find a better solution, and calls for cushions so that this group can discuss it more.

Thesis: the importance of oratory to society and the state

Crassus states that oratory is one of the greatest acomplishments that a nation can have. He extols the power that oratory can give to a person- including the ability to maintain civil rights, words to defend oneself, and the ability to revenge oneself on a wicked person. The ability to converse is what gives mankind our advantage over other animals and nature. It is what creates civilization. Since speech is so important, why should we not use it to the benefit of oneself, other individuals, and even the entire State?

• Thesis challenged

Scaevola agrees with Crassus's points except for two. Scaevola does not feel that orators are what created social communities and he questions the superiority of the orator if there were no assemblies, courts, etc. It was good decision making and laws that formed society, not eloquence. Was Romulus an orator? Scaevola says that there are more examples of damage done by orators than good, and he could cite many instances. There are other factors of civilization that are more important than orator: ancient ordinances, traditions, augery, religious rites & laws, private individual laws. Had Scaevola not been in Crassus's domain, Scaevola would take Crassus to court and argue over his assertions, a place where oratory belongs. Courts, assemblies and in the Senate are where oratory should remain, and Crassus should not make oratory important in any other fields other than these. That is too sweeping for the profession of oratory.

• Reply to challenge

Crassus replies that he has heard Scaevola's views before in many people including Plato in Gorgias. However, he does not agree with their viewpoint. In respects to Gorgias, Crassus was more impressed by the fact that while Plato was making fun of orators, Plato himself was the ultimate orator. If the orator was nothing more than a speaker without the knowledge of oratory, how come the people that are most revered are skilled orators? The best speakers are those who have a certain "style." But the style is lost if the speaker does not comprehend the subject matter on which he is speaking.

Rhetoric is a science

Crassus says he does not borrow from Aristotle or Theophrastus their theories regarding the orator. For while the schools of Philosophy claim that rhetoric and other arts etc belongs to them, the science of oratory which adds "style," belong to it's own science. Each individual school has it's own specialty, (i.e. law and religion) but it is the Orator who has to have knowledge of all these arts as well as the style to speak on them.

The orator must know the facts

In order to speak effectivly on a subject, the orator must have some knowledge of that subject. Can an advocate for or against war speak on the subject without knowing the art of war? Can an advocate speak on legislation if he doesn't know law or how the administration process works?

Even though others will disagree, Crassus states that a professor of the natural science such as mathmatics also must use oratory style to give an effective speech on his subject. For example, Ascleoiades, a well-known physician, was popular not just because of his medical expertise, but because he could share it with eloquence.

The orator can get up technicalities, but he must be versed in political and moral science

Anyone who can speak with knowledge upon a subject can be called an orator as long as he does so with knowledge, charm, memory and has a certain style. Philosophy is divided into three branches: nature, dialectic and knowledge of human conduct. In order to trully be a great orator, one must master the third branch. Bypassing the first two branches, mastery of the third branch is what distingishes the orator and the great orator.

The orator, like the poet, needs a wide education

An orator is very much like the poet. The poet is more encombered by rhythm than the orator, but in word choice and ornamentation his equal. Crassus then replies to Scaevola's remark about being in Crassus domain (law). Crassus states that he would not have made the claim that orators should be knowledgeable in all subjects had he himself been the person he is describing. But, one should not be listed as an orator if he has not been able to demonstrate knowledge of the accomplishments of oratory.

Parts XVII and XVIII: The position challenged and defended

Scaevola says he will debate with Crassus no longer. Crassus has managed to twist some of what he has said to his benefit. Scaevola appreciates the fact that Crassus, unlike some others, didn't jeer at Philosophy and the other arts, but instead gave them credit and put them under the catagory of oratory. Scaevola cannot deny that a man who has mastered all the arts plus has the power of speech would indeed be a remarkable man. And if there ever existed such a person, Crassus would be that person.

Crassus again refutes that he is this kind of man. He is talking about an orator, not himself. However, if others think he is this good of an orator, what then would they think of a person who had greater skills and really was an orator?

Antonius says that Crassus has made his case effectively. But a great orator under Crassus' definition would be hard to acheive. First, how would a person get knowledge of every subject? Second, it would be hard for this person to stay strictly true to traditional oratory and not be led astray into advocacy. Antonius ran into this himself while delayed in Athens. Rumor got out that he was a "learned man," and he was approached by many people to represent their personal causes. In Athens there are many men such as Crassus describes, but these orators were mainly wise men or artisans, and were not functional in the society.

Charmadus, an Athenian orator, didn't have all the knowledge of what he spoke about, but felt that oratory skills came from studying the philosophers.

Report of debate at Athens

Antonius tells of the debate that occurred in Athens regarding this very subject. Menedemus, a politician and lawyer in Athens, says that one must understand the fundamentals of government to be an orator. This angered Charmadas, who thought that law and politics didn't teach knowledge of the gods, self-control, moderation, etc. Their study book only taught the technical aspext of law (such as how to write a law) but nothing about justice, loyalty, fairness or the building of human character. Because of this, the authors of these books didn't have true wisdon, nor eloquence. The only way to acheive this knowledge is through knowledge of the philosophers. Menedemus rebuted Charmadas by quoting passages from the speeches of Demosthenes. And he gave examples of how speeches given from the knowledge of law and politics can compell the audience.

Charmadas agrees that Demosthenes was a good orator, but questions whether this was a natural ability or because of his studies of Plato. Demosthenes often said that there was no art to eloquence that there were those born with an apptitude for it. Demosthenes even mentions Antonius himself in his speeches as one who had never learned anything but was a good orator. In a nutshell, Antonius thought Demosthenes appeared to be arguing that there was no "craft" of oratory and no one could speek well unless he had mastered philosophical teaching. Charmadas spoke favorably of Crassus' talents.

Real eloquence unknown

Is there a science of rhetoric?

Requirements of the orator

Orators judged less leniently than actors

• Variety of gifts expected in the orator
• Defects are noticed at once