Cicero's De Oratore

De Oratore starts with Cicero addressing his brother Quintus and recalling his life time that when he gets to be old, he could retire to a happy and quiet life and then lamenting the reality of “disastrous times” and “personal misfortunes” which prevents him from attaining that goal. It appears that he is writing this book in response to a request from his brother, whereby he is asked to discuss the topic of rhetoric and oratory. He also sets up a fundamental opposition between his own view that “eloquence is dependent upon the trained skill of highly educated men” and his brother’s view to the effect that “it must be separated from the refinements of learning and made to depend on a sort of natural talent and on practice” (p290). This dichotomy seems to run throughout the text in one way or the other. Later, in the fashion of Plato’s dialogs, Cicero sets up a dialog between several individuals, chief among them Crassus and Antonius. It seems like Crassus is representing Cicero’s views while Antonius those of his brothers: Crassus advocates knowledge and rigorous training for someone to become an orator (extensive knowledge is a prerequisite of eloquence), while Antonius argues that for the most part eloquence is a natural faculty and it can be developed by exercise and imitation of the works of good orators.The language in the introduction in which he sets up the background for his work is flowery and full of metaphors, and is a reflection of the writer’s desire or admiration for eloquence and strong language. He also laments the lack of great orators, and attributes this to the fact (as he thinks) good oratory skills require extensive training and knowledge. I think the dichotomy set up between training and knowledge on one side, and natural abilities on the other side, is somewhat artificial. In many cases we have seen people who speak well and effectively, and we can admit that the effectiveness of their speech is a reflection of the depth or breadth of their knowledge in their field. We also see people who don’t have formal training or extensive knowledge, and yet they can speak very effectively. On the other hand we know people who are extremely knowledgeable in a field but are at the same time very poor communicators and speakers even in their field of specialty. So like more or less everything else in life, I think this is a case where reality does not fit a simple dualistic model (one or the other), but consists of many shades of grey with details depending upon numerous individual characteristics such as the field of interest, the particularities of the occasion, the background of the speaker, the audience, social conditions, etc.