Brutus (Cicero)

Cicero's Brutus (also known as De claris oratibus) is a history of Roman oratory. It is written in the form of a dialogue, in which Brutus and Atticus ask Cicero to describe the qualities of all the leading Roman orators up to their time. It was composed in 46 BC, with the purpose of defending Cicero's own oratory. He begins with an introductory section on Greek oratory of the Attic, Asianic, and Rhodian schools, before discussing Roman orators, beginning with Lucius Junius Brutus, "The Liberator", though becoming more specific from the time of Marcus Cornelius Cethegus.

I. Criteria

See Kikero’s De Oratore for a more detailed exposition of his views on the criteria of a COMPLETE ORATOR. In brief, his basic criteria are: 1) a public speaker; 2) an honorable citizen; 3) proficiency in each of the five CANONS OF RHETORIC – invention, elocution, disposition, memory and pronunciation. Throughout Brutus, Kikero uses these parts of rhetoric to evaluate the greatness of public speakers. In his view, an orator necessarily has basic competence in all five parts; deficiency in any one of them prevented some speakers from being true orators. Nevertheless, even the greatest ones, such as Lucius Antonius, tended to excel in one part in comparison to the others. (Antonius distinguished himself by his exceptional delivery (XXXVIII)).

II. The Birth of Oratory in Greece

Kikero declares that his letter is no less than about “… the History of Eminent Orators,–when they made their first appearance, and who and what they were …” (V).

He proclaims that the birthplace of the art of eloquence was Periclean Greece: “But when I direct my eyes to Greece, your beloved Athens … first strikes my sight, and is the brightest object in my view; for in that illustrious city the ORATOR first made his appearance, and it is there we shall find the first records of eloquence, and the first specimens of a discourse conducted by rules of art” (VII).

There is no production -- which seems to have been the effort of an orator -- before Pericles and Thucydides; except it is supposed that Peisistratus, Solon and Cleisthenes, who were law-givers, were “able speakers” for the time they lived in (VII).

Some years after these, came Themistocles, “who is said to have been as distinguished by his eloquence as by his political abilities”, and Pericles, who “though adorned with every kind of excellence, was most admired for his talents as a speaker”. Cleon, their contemporary, though a “turbulent citizen” was a “tolerable orator” (VII).

But as soon as the force of a regular and well-adjusted style was understood, a crowd of rhetoricians appeared including Gorgias of Leontini, Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Protagoras the Abderite and Hippias the Elean, “who were all held in great esteem” (VIII). There were also many others who professed to teach their students “how the worse might be made, by the force of eloquence, to appear the better cause”. These however were openly opposed by Socrates who “took every opportunity to refute the principles of their art” (VIII). (See, in particular, Plato’s Sophist.)

As Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Protagoras and Hippias were in the decline of life, Isocrates made his appearance. He did not perform in the forum but improved within the walls of “an obscure academy” which “stood open to Greece as the school of eloquence” whose glory “no orator has since acquired”. He “composed many valuable specimens of his art, and taught the principles of it to others”. Among his most notable achievements is having “first discovered that a certain rhythm and modulation should be observed in prose, care being taken, however, to avoid making verses”. Before him, “the artificial structure and harmony of language was unknown;–or, if there are any traces of it to be discovered, they appear to have been made without design” (VIII).

After Isocrates came Lysias, who, “though not personally engaged in forensic causes, was a very accurate and elegant composer”. He was such that “you might almost venture to pronounce [him] a complete orator” (IX).

The fame of Lysias was “eclipsed” (XVII), however, by Demosthenes who “approaches the character [of a complete orator] so nearly, that you may apply it to him without hesitation”. He is held up by Kikero as the paradigmatic orator: “No keen, no artful turns could have been contrived for the pleadings he has left behind him, which he did not readily discover; nothing could have been composed with greater nicety, or more clearly and poignantly, than it has been already expressed by him; and nothing greater, nothing more rapid and forcible, nothing adorned with a nobler elevation, either of language or sentiment, can be conceived, than what is to be found in his orations” (IX). These descriptors are reserved by Kikero in Brutus to describe complete orators.

Other remarkable ones, around the time of Demosthenes, were Hyperides, Aeschylus, Lycurgus, Dinarchus and Demades (IX).

III. The First Orators in Ancient Rome

The first known Roman orator is Marcus Cornelius Cethegus. He possessed a “remarkable sweetness of elocution” -- which Kikero compares favorably to some modern orators, “who may be said rather to bark than to speak”. Cethegus is described by his contemporary, Quintus Ennius, as “the choicest flower of the state” and “the very marrow and quintessence of persuasion” (XV).

About the time of Cethegus was Marcus Cato who Kikero compares with Lysias: “There is, however, a remarkable resemblance between his character and that of Cato; for they are both of them distinguished by their acuteness, their elegance, their agreeable humour, and their brevity” (XVI).

Kikero comments that “The Greeks themselves acknowledge that the chief beauty of composition results from the frequent use of those tralatitious forms of expression which they call TROPES, and of those various attitudes of language and sentiment which they call FIGURES …” (XVII).

Cato employed rhetorical devices with great “copiousness” and “amazing variety” which makes him comparable to the ATTIC STYLE of the Greek orators such as Demosthenes and Lysias (XVII).

Contemporary with Cato were Caius Flaminius, Caius Varro, Quintus Maximus, Quintus Metellus, Publius Lentulus and Publius Crassus.

When Cato was in the decline of life, a crowd of orators made their appearance: Aulus Albinus, Servius Fulvius, Servius Fabius Pictor, Quintus Fabius Labeo, Lucius Cotta, Caius Laelius, Publius Africanus and Servius Galba who was indisputably the greatest speaker of his age; for “He was the first among the Romans who displayed the proper and distinguishing talents of an orator; such as, digressing from his subject to embellish and diversify it,–smoothing or alarming the passions exhibiting every circumstance in the strongest light,–in exploring the compassion of his audience,–and artfully enlarging on these topics, or general principles of prudence and morality, on which the stress of his judgment depended …” (XXI).

Kikero summarizes: “[T]he two principal qualities required in an orator, are perspicuity in stating the subject, and dignified ardour in moving the passions” (XXIII).

IV. Kikero’s Analysis of Moderate Roman Orators

Language and judgment – Lucius Furius Philus spoke “language as elegantly and more correctly than any other man”, and Publius Scaevola was “very acute and judicious” and “more fluent than Publius”, yet for that both were only “tolerable orators”. Publius Decius was “not destitute of eloquence”, but “his style was too bold, as his temper was too violent” (XXVIII).

Delivery – Kikero observes that speakers like Philus, Scaevola and Decius were not destitute of genius “but only of that particular kind of it which distinguishes the orator”. He emphasizes the importance of DELIVERY: “it is of little consequence to discover what is proper to be said, unless you are able to express it in a free and agreeable manner; and even that will be insufficient, if not recommended by the voice, the look, and the gesture” (XXIX).

Gravitas – Marcus Scaurus was “remarkably grave, and commanded the respect of the hearer; so that, when he was speaking for his client, you would rather have thought he was giving evidence in his favour, than pleading his cause”. This “bespoke his prudence, but what was still a more important recommendation, his credibility”. Kikero observes, however, that Scaurus is rarely studied (XXIX). He is only “tolerable” but is mentioned because “I would not have our applause confined to those alone who act the busy and more important characters; but reserve a share of it for the quiet and unambitious performer, who is distinguished by a simple truth of gesture, without any violence” (XXX).

Rigor – Publius Rutilius was “distinguished by his solemn and austere way of speaking”. Rutilius was “a man of great industry and application” and “a learned man”. His orations were “very dry”. Influenced by stoicism (i.e., a school of Greek philosophy which placed heavy emphasis on deductive reasoning), his “method of discoursing, though very close and artful, is too precise, and not at all adapted to engage the attention of common people” (XXX).

Temper – Quintus Aelius Tubero was “never esteemed an orator” but was “a man of the most rigid virtue” and consistency. He did not have “sufficient ease and polish”. His temper and manner of speaking were “harsh, unpolished, and austere”. Nonetheless, he was a “brave and steady citizen” (XXXI).

Further reading

• G. V. Sumner (1973) The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology
• Edward A. Robinson, The Date of Cicero's Brutus, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 60, (1951), pp. 137–146

External links

•  Latin Wikisource has original text related to this article: Brutus
• English translation at attalus.org
• Latin text at thelatinlibrary
• Text at Gutenberg
• All citations of the actual work are taken from Cicero on Oratory and Orators: With His Letters to Quintus and Brutus, Tr. Or. Ed. by J. S. Watson - Primary Source Edition.