Brutus (Cicero): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 645624398 by Nicknack009 (talk)
m Reverted edits by 76.70.5.62 (talk) to last version by Nicknack009
Line 1: Line 1:
{{italic title}}
{{italic title}}
[[Cicero]]'s '''''Brutus''''' (also known as ''De claris oratibus'') is a history of [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] [[Eloquence|oratory]]. It is written in the form of a dialogue, in which [[Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger|Brutus]] and [[Titus Pomponius Atticus|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]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Howatson|first1=M.C|last2=Chivers|first2=Ian|title=Oxford Concise Companion to Classical Literature|date=1993|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0192827081|page=95}}</ref>
During his retirement, Kikero composed ''De Oratore'', an educational manual comparable to Plato’s ''Republic'', and ''Brutus'' which collectively form his “mature views” on the subject of oratory or public speaking. Kikero’s ''Brutus; or, Remarks on Eminent Orators'' is a review of the most famous public speakers from Pericles to Kikero. It takes the form of a dialogue between Kikero, the main interlocutor, and two of his contemporaries, Atticus and Brutus, in his garden in Rome. The dialogue begins by locating the birth of classical oratory in Periclean Athens, and then proceeds to review the merits and demerits of Roman orators, and concludes with a discussion of the appropriate style and the true meaning of the “Attic style”. Throughout, ''Brutus'' explores the various mathematical combinations of skill level in each of the five canons of rhetoric in the form of the historical figures he examines. This summary contains, first, Kikero’s history of oratory and then, second, Kikero’s character analyses of the Roman orators and his conclusions about the correct style of delivery.


I. Kikero's Theory and Criticism

In brief, Kikero's basic criteria for a complete orator 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 Marcus Antonius, tended to excel in one part in comparison to the others. (Antonius distinguished himself by his exceptional delivery (XXXVIII)).

There are three things an orator should be able to do: “… to ''inform'' his hearers, to ''please'' them, and to ''move their passions''” (XLIX). In other words, the orator should accomplish all three functions of language: informative, emotive and directive.


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 the Leontine''', '''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).

Other remarkable orators, 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).

Philosophy and logic – The problem with Stoic philosophers is that “… their whole attention was so closely confined to the study of logic, that they never troubled themselves to acquire the free, diffusive, and variegated style which is so necessary for a public speaker” (XXXI). Philosophy is necessary, but insufficient: “… even the delicate and flowing style of the Peripatetics and Academics is not sufficient to complete an orator; nor yet can he be complete without it” (XXXI). Even Demosthenes attended the lectures of Plato and studied his works. Kikero adds that the Epicurean School of Philosophy is “of all others … the least adapted to form an orator” (XXXV).

Wit and Pleasantry – '''Publius Scipio''', who died in his consulship, neither spoke much nor often but was “inferior to no one in purity of language, and superior to all in wit and pleasantry” (XXXIV).

Integrity and Firmness – '''Caius Fimbria''', a tolerable pleader and civilian, was “rather rough and abusive, and much too warm and hasty; but his application, and his great integrity and firmness, made him a serviceable speaker in the Senate”. Kikero adds that “When we were boys, we used to think his orations worth reading” (an indication of his success) (XXXIV).

Style – '''Lucius Cotta''' was a tolerable orator, but never made any progress. He adopted an antiquated style; endeavoring “both in the choice of his words and the rusticity of his pronunciation, to imitate the manner of the ancients” (XXXVI).

Greatness – After Lucius Cotta, the two greatest Roman orators in Kikero’s estimation – namely, '''Lucius Crassus''' and '''Marcus Antonius''' – made their appearance. (These two orators are discussed in the next section.)

Mediocrity – Following Crassus and Antonius was '''Lucius Philippus'''. He had “an uncommon freedom of address, a large fund of humour, great facility in the invention of his sentiments, and a ready and easy manner of expressing them” (XLVII).In the heat of a debate, “he could sting, and lash, as well as ridicule his opponents” (XLVII). However, he was only a “good speaker” not a “good orator” (XLVII).

Other good speakers around the time of Philippus include the consul '''Decimus Brutus''' who was “skilled in Greek and Roman literature”; '''Lucius Scipio''' who was “not an unskilful speaker”; and '''Marcus Brutus''' and '''Caius Bilienus''' who both became accomplished lawyers (XLVII).

Elegance – '''Caius Julius''' was superior to his predecessors and contemporaries in “wit and humour”. He was not “nervous and striking”, but “in the elegance, the pleasantry, and the agreeableness of his manner, he has not been excelled by any man”. He had “a pleasing tranquility of expression with very little energy”. Kikero observes that in his time some of Julius’ orations were still extant (XLVIII).

Jurisprudence – '''Publius Cethegus''' was heavily involved in public affairs (“… [He] had always enough to say on matters of civil regulation”) because of his sagacious understanding of legal minutiae (“… he had studied and comprehended … [the law] with the minutest accuracy”).

Kairos – '''Titus Juventius''' had a great deal of experience in the practice of law but was “too heavy and inanimate”. His virtues as a speaker included being “keen and artful” and knowing “how to seize every advantage which was offered by his antagonist” (XLVIII).

Elocution – '''Caius Curio''', who had very little learning, was the third best orator of the age “perhaps, because his language was brilliant and pompous, and because he had a habit … of expressing himself with tolerable correctness” (LVIII). Kikero suggests that “we can infer from Curio, that nothing will more recommend an orator, than a brilliant and ready flow of expression; for he was remarkably dull in the invention, and very loose and unconnected in the disposition, of his arguments” (LIX). In addition, “The two remaining parts are, pronunciation and memory; in each of which he was so miserably defective, as to excite the laughter and the ridicule of his hearers” (LX). As an example, Curio’s memory was so poor “… that after he had divided his subject into three general heads, he would sometimes, in the course of speaking, either add a fourth, or omit the third”. On one occasion, during a trial with Kikero who was pleading for Titinia, “… when he attempted to reply to me in defence of Servius Naevius, he suddenly forgot everything he intended to say, and attributed it to the pretended witchcraft and magic artifices of Titinia” (LX).

Ease – '''Caius Carbo''', the son of Curio, was an orator of the second class and “far from being an acute speaker himself”: “His language was tolerably nervous, he spoke with ease; and there was an air of authority in his address that was perfectly natural” (LXII).

Quickness – '''Quintus Varius''' “was a man of quicker invention, and, at the same time, had an equal freedom of expression [as Carbo]; besides which, he had a bold and spirited delivery, and a vein of elocution which was neither poor, nor coarse and vulgar; in short, you need not hesitate to pronounce him an orator” (LXII).

Charm – '''Cnaeus Pomponius''' “was a vehement, a rousing, and a fierce and eager speaker” (LXII).

Peculiarity – '''Sextus Titus''' was “indeed a voluble speaker, and possessed a ready comprehension; but he was so loose and effeminate in his gesture, as to furnish room for the invention of a dance, which was called the Titian jig; so careful should we be to avoid every peculiarity in our manner of speaking, which may afterwards be exposed to ridicule by a ludicrous imitation” (LXII).

Tone – '''Publius Antistius''', who was contemporary with Publius Sulpicius above mentioned, was a plausible declaimer who had a “quick conception, a methodical judgment, and a retentive memory”. His action, however, “was a little defective, partly through the disagreeable tone of his voice, and partly by a few ridiculous gestures, of which he could not entirely break himself” (LXIII).

Action – '''Cnaeus Lentulus’''' “action acquired him a reputation for his eloquence far beyond his real abilities; for though he was not a man of any great penetration (notwithstanding he carried the appearance of it in his countenance), nor possessed any real fluency of expression (though he was equally specious in this respect as in the former), yet by his sudden breaks, and exclamations, he affected such an ironical air of surprise, with a sweat and sonorous tone of voice, and his whole action was so warm and lively, that his defects were scarcely noticed”. Comparison to Curio: “For as Curio acquired the reputation of an orator with no other quality than a tolerable freedom of elocution, so Cnaeus Lentulus concealed the mediocrity of his other accomplishments by his action, which was really excellent” (LXVI).

Anger – '''Marcus Piso''' gained many of his talents as a speaker from study, rather than by nature. He was well-versed in Grecian literature – a method of becoming skilful at applying rhetorical devices. He also had a natural keenness for discernment (i.e., intelligence). Nevertheless, he “was frequently warm and choleric, sometimes cold and insipid, and now and then rather smart and humorous” (LXVII).

Flatness – '''Caius Censorinus''' likewise had an extensive knowledge of Greek literature and was clear in articulation and graceful in his action but “was too cold and inanimate for the forum” (LXVII).

Invention – '''Caius Macer''' was one of the most active pleaders of his time. He was “neither copious, nor dry and barren; neither neat and embellished, nor wholly inelegant; and his voice, his gesture, and every part of his action, was without any grace; but in inventing and digesting his ideas, he had a wonderful accuracy, such as no man I ever saw either possessed or exerted in a more eminent degree …” (LXVII).

Masculinity – '''Cnaeus Pompeius''', who pursued a career in the military instead of law, had a “language [that] was naturally bold and elevated”. His voice was “sonorous and manly” and his gestures were “noble and full of dignity” (LXVIII).

Ferocity – '''Caius Staienus''' was “a warm, an abusive, and indeed a furious speaker” (LXVIII). Atticus, one of the interlocutors with Kikero, describes Staienus as one of the poorest Roman orators (LXIX).

Voice – '''Publius Antronius''' had a “very clear and strong voice” but was “distinguished by no other accomplishment” (LXVIII). Atticus also describes Autronius as one of the poorest Roman orators (LXIX).

Speed – '''Caius Visellius Varro''', though he never passed as a man of eloquence among the public, is held in esteem by Kikero. His speech was “excessively quick and rapid, and consequently indistinct”. Yet “you will scarcely find a man who had a better choice of words”. He also had a thorough acquaintance with literature and jurisprudence (LXXVI).

Critical thinking – '''Lucius Lentulus''', though not an orator, was only an “animated speaker” because he had an aversion to critical thinking. His voice was sonorous and his language, “though not absolutely harsh and forbidding, was warm and vigorous, and carried with it a kind of terror”. Kikero comments that while one would not want him for a lawyer, he was sufficient for deliberative oratory.

Method – Kikero praises the skill of two of his fellow counsel, '''Publius Cominius Cornelius''' who was “methodical, spirited, and a ready speaker”, and '''Tiberius Accius''' who was an accurate and “tolerably copious advocate” (LXXVIII).

Pathos – '''Marcus Calidius''' was a master of the first two functions of an orator (i.e., informing and pleasing the audience) (LXXIX). The problem with his oratory was that he did not exhibit any emotion, which is necessary to excite the passions of the audience (i.e., the third function of an orator). Thus, during a trial in which Calidius was prosecuting Kikero’s client for a crime, Kikero used Calidius’ lack of emotion against him to challenge his credibility: ‘ “Would it be possible … that you should speak with this air of unconcern, unless the charge was purely an invention of your own? And, above all, that you … should speak so coolly of a crime which threatened your life? Where was that expression that was natural to the injured? Where that ardour, that eagerness, which extorts the most pathetic language even from men of the dullest capacities?” ’ (quoted at LXXX).

Atticism – '''Caius Licinus Calvus''' had a “more accurate and delicate manner of speaking [i.e., pronunciation], which he conducted with great taste and elegance”, than Curio. Calvus’ style was “exquisitely polished, as to charm the eye of every skilful observer”, but was “little noticed by the common people in a crowded forum, which is the proper theatre of eloquence”. Brutus adds that Calvus purposefully endeavored to be “admired as an Attic orator” (LXXXII).


V. The Complete Orators and Kikero’s Self-Evaluation

i) '''Marcus Antonius'''

a) Intelligence and arrangement: “Antonius comprehended everything which could be of service to his cause, and he arranged his materials in the most advantageous order … Antonius drew up those parts of his arguments in those parts of his discourse, where they were likely to have the best effect” (XXXVII).

b) Memory and pronunciation: “He had a quick and retentive memory, and a frankness of manner which precluded any suspicion of artifice. All his speeches were, in appearance, the unpremeditated effusions of an honest heart; and yet, in reality, they were preconcerted with so much skill, that the judges were sometimes not so well prepared as they should have been, to withstand the force of them” (XXXVII).

c) Elocution: “His language, indeed, was not so refined as to pass for the standard of elegance; for which reason he was thought to be a rather careless speaker; and yet, on the other hand, it was neither vulgar nor incorrect … But in the choice of his words … and likewise in the structure of his language and the compass of his periods, Antonius conformed himself to the dictates of reason, and, in great measure, to the nicer rules of art; though his chief excellence was a judicious management of the figures and decorations of sentiment” (XXXVII).

d) Delivery: “Antonius … had a peculiar excellence in his manner of delivery, both as to his voice and gesture; for the latter was such as to correspond to the meaning of every sentence, without beating time to the words. His hands, his shoulders, the turn of his body, the stamp of his foot, his posture, his air, and, in short, all his motions, were adapted to his language and sentiments; and his voice was strong and firm, though naturally hoarse; -- a defect which he alone was capable of improving to his advantage; for in capital causes, it had a mournful dignity of accent, which was exceedingly proper, both to win the assent of the judges, and excite their compassion for a suffering client” (XXXVIII).

ii) '''Lucius Crassus'''

a) Elocution: “He possessed a wonderful dignity of elocution, with an agreeable mixture of wit and pleasantry, which was perfectly polished, and without the smallest tincture of scurrility. His style was correct and elegant, without stiffness or affectation” (XXXVIII).

b) Arrangement: “… his method of reasoning was remarkably clear and distinct” (XXXVIII).

c) Invention: “… when his cause turned upon any point of law or equity, he had an inhaustible fund of arguments and comparative illustrations” (XXXVIII).

d) Delivery: “… no man could explain and define, or discuss a point of equity, with a more copious facility than Crassus”. He had “such a wonderful vein of oratory in commenting, explaining, and discussing, that I never beheld his equal; though in amplifying, embellishing, and refuting, he was rather to be dreaded as a formidable critic, than admired as an eloquent speaker” (XXXIX).

e) Pronunciation: “Crassus … always came into the forum ready prepared for the combat. He was expected with impatience, and heard with pleasure. When he first began his oration (which he always did in a very accurate style), he seemed worthy of the great expectations he had raised. He was very moderate in the movements of his body, had no remarkable variation of voice, never advanced from the ground he stood upon, and seldom stamped his foot; his language was forcible, and sometimes warm and pathetic; he had many strokes of humour, which were always tempered with a becoming dignity; and, what is difficult to attain, he was at once very florid and very concise” (XLIII).

iii) '''Quintus Hortensius Hortalus'''

a) Initial popularity: “Hortensius … began to speak in public when he was very young … [and] was soon employed in causes of the greatest moment; and though he first appeared in the time of Cotta and Sulpicius … and when Crassus and Antonius, and afterwards Philippus and Julius, were in the height of their reputation, he was thought worthy to be compared to either of them in point of eloquence” (LXXXVIII).

b) Memory: “He had such an excellent memory as I never knew in any person; so that what he had composed in private, he was able to repeat, without notes, in the very same words he had made use of at first. He employed this natural advantage with so much readiness, that he not only recollected whatever he had written or premeditated himself, but remembered everything that had been said by his opponents, without the help of a prompter” (LXXXVIII).

c) Delivery: “He had, besides, a turn of expression which was very far from being low and unelevated; and possessed two other accomplishments, in which no one could equal him; – an uncommon clearness and accuracy in stating the points he was to discuss; and a neat and easy manner of collecting the substance of what had been said by his antagonist, and by himself” (LXXXVIII).

d) Elocution: “He had likewise an elegant choice of words, an agreeable flow in his periods, and a copious elocution, for which he was perfectly indebted to a fine natural capacity, and which was partly acquired by the most laborious rhetorical exercises” (LXXXVIII).

e) Arrangement: “In short, he had a most retentive view of his subject, and always divided and distributed it into distinct parts with the greatest exactness; and he very seldom overlooked anything which the case could suggest, that was proper either to support his own allegations, or to refute those of his opponent” (LXXXVIII).

f) Pronunciation: “Lastly, he had a sweet and sonorous voice; but his gesture had rather more art in it, and was managed with more precision than is required in an orator” (LXXXVIII).

g) Declining popularity: “Hortensius “began to remit that intense application which he had hitherto persevered in from his childhood ... he chose to live for the future what he thought an easy life, but which, in turn, was a rather indolent one. In the three succeeding years, the beauty of his coloring was so much impaired as to be very perceptible to a skilful connoisseur, though not to a common observer. After that, he grew every day more unlike himself than before, not only in other parts of eloquence, but by a gradual decay of the former celerity and elegant texture of his language” (XCIII). “But if we mean to inquire, why Hortensius was more admired for his eloquence in the younger part of his life than in his later years, we shall find it owing to the following causes. The first was, that an Asiatic style is more allowable in a young man than in an old one” (XCV).

iv) '''Marcus Tullius Kikero'''

a) Constitution: During his youth “my body was exceedingly weak and emaciated; my neck long and slender; a shape and habit which I thought to be liable to great risk of life…”. It gave his family great alarm that “I used to speak without any remission or variation, with the utmost stretch of my voice, and a total agitation of my body”. His friends and physician recommended that he “meddle no more with forensic causes” but Kikero “resolved to run any hazard rather than quit the hopes of glory which I had proposed to myself from pleading” (XCI).

b) Education: Kikero travelled to Greece “for an opportunity to correct my manner of speaking”. He spent six months at Athens studying with Antiochus, a philosopher of Plato’s Academy. At the same time he continued his rhetorical exercises under an instructor in public speaking, Demetrius the Syrian. After the six months he travelled throughout Asia Minor to practice oratory with “the principal orators of the country”. The chief of the Asiatic orators was '''Menippus of Stratonica'''; but he also was continually with the Asiatic orators '''Dionysius of Magnesia''', '''Aeschylus of Cnidos''' and '''Xenocles of Adramyttium'''. However, Kikero was not contented with these Asiatic orators and travelled to Rhodes to study under '''Apollonius Molon'''. After his excursion, which lasted two years, he returned to Rome “not only much improved, but almost changed into a new man. The vehemence of my voice and action was considerably abated; the excessive ardour of my language was corrected; my lungs were strengthened; and my whole constitution confirmed and settled” (XCI).

c) Career: There were two orators prominent in the forum when Kikero returned: Cotta and Hortensius. Since Hortensius “was nearer to me in age, and his manner more agreeable to the natural ardour of my temper, I considered him as the proper object of my competition”. In his first year back Kikero pleaded several capital causes and was elected to quaestorship. He passed a year in Sicily and when he returned from Rome “my oratorical abilities, such as they were, displayed themselves in their full perfection and maturity”. He then spent five years pleading a variety of causes and with the ablest advocates of the time and was elected an aedile (XCII). His “accurate way of speaking … [and] novelty of eloquence” gained him more popularity with the public (XCIII). His autobiographical sketch concludes with his appointment to consul and mentions twelve years of his consulship during which he developed a close friendship with Hortensius (XCIV).


VI. The Asiatic Style Versus The Attic Style

The Attic style involves “avoid[ing] every awkward, every harsh, every vicious expression” and detesting “whatever is insipid, disgusting, or incorrect”. It involves “correctness and propriety of language as the religion and good-manners of an orator” (LXXXII).

Kikero advises that there is a great extent of variety and character between the Attic orators: “Who, for instance, could be more unlike each other than Demosthenes and Lysias? Or than Demosthenes and Hyperides? Or who more different than either of them, than Aeschines?”. To which Brutus suggests “Let us, then, imitate Demosthenes!” (LXXXII).

Kikero recounts that when Demosthenes gave speeches, “all Greece flocked in crowds to hear him”. But when the Atticisers (i.e., Roman orators who profess to imitate the Attic Style) venture to speak “they are presently deserted, not only be the little throng around them who have no interest in the dispute, … but even by their associates and fellow-advocates” (LXXXIV).

Kikero argues that the Atticisers are welcome to enjoy the credit of practicing the Attic Style if “to speak … in a dry and lifeless manner, is the true criterion of Atticism” (LXXXIV).

The Asiatic style, so-called because it was the predominant style in Asia Minor, is more juvenile than the Attic; Kikero says it is “more allowable in a young man, than in an old one” and that it appeals to younger audiences (XCV).

There are two kinds of Asiatic Style: “The former is sententious and sprightly, and abounds in those turns of thought which are not so much distinguished by their weight and solidity as by their neatness and elegance”; “The other sort is not so remarkable for the plenitude and richness of its thoughts, as for its rapid volubility of expression, and … is recommended by a choice of words which are peculiarly delicate and ornamental” (XCV).

In the context of forensic oratory, Kikero argues that the Attic Style is such as wherever “… [the orator] is universally admired, that when he [or she] is to plead an interesting cause, all the benches are filled beforehand, the tribunal crowded, the clerks and notaries busy in adjusting their seats, the populace thronging about the rostra, and the judge brisk and vigilant; he [or she], who has such a commanding air, that when he [or she] rises up to speak, the whole audience is hushed into a profound silence, which is soon interrupted by their repeated plaudits and acclamations, or by those successive bursts of laughter, or violent transports of passion, which he [or she] knows how to excite at his [or her] pleasure; so that even a distant observer, though unacqiuanted with the subject he [or she] is speaking upon, can easily discover that his [or her] hearers are pleased with him [or her]” (LXXXIV).


VII. Conclusion

Kikero concludes by mentioning the difficulty of oratory: “And as to my admitting so many into my list of orators, I only did it … to show how few have succeeded in a profession, in which all were desirous to excel” (LXXXVII).

Indeed, “a whole age could scarcely furnish two speakers who really excelled in their profession”. For example, Galba was the only orator of distinction among his contemporaries (XCVII)

He advises Brutus “to distinguish yourself from the promiscuous crowd of pleaders with which I have loaded the little history I have been giving you” (XCVII).

The concluding paragraphs are not extant.


==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.&nbsp;137–146


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist}}
All citations are to ''Cicero on Oratory and Orators: With His Letters to Quintus and Brutus'', Tr. Or Ed. By J. S. Watson - Primary Source Edition.


==External links==
==External links==
Line 207: Line 19:
[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Works of Cicero on oratory]]
[[Category:Works of Cicero on oratory]]


{{AncientRome-work-stub}}

Revision as of 07:53, 5 February 2015

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.[1]

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

References

  1. ^ Howatson, M.C; Chivers, Ian (1993). Oxford Concise Companion to Classical Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0192827081.

External links


Stub icon

This article about an Ancient Roman book or literary work is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brutus_(Cicero)&oldid=645719126"