Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative worksBaldwin, Charles Sears
History
Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative works
Baldwin, Charles Sears
Classical literature -- History and criticism -- Theory, etc.; Poetics -- History -- To 1500; Rhetoric, Ancient
Cicero remains after two thousand years the typical orator writing on
oratory. The most eminent orator of Roman civilization, he wrote more
than any other orator has ever written on rhetoric; and historically he
has been more than any other an ideal and model. Conscious of his own
range and of the narrowness and low esteem that seem from the beginning
to have cursed teachers and especially manuals of rhetoric, he is anxious
in his greater works, _De oratore_ and _Orator_, to appear not as a
rhetorician, but as a philosopher. Though no treatment could well be more
different from Aristotle’s, he is at pains to urge the Academic theory
that rhetoric is a branch of philosophy, and to avoid the technical terms
of the art while keeping its traditional categories. In this attitude he
is but the more typically the artist discussing his own art. He writes as
the man of letters in any age writes on literary composition. We may be
annoyed at a certain condescension toward teachers—as if they might think
themselves able to impart anything like his skill! We may be baffled in
trying to reduce some of his elaborations to specific terms. But rather
we should be grateful to find rhetoric presented, for once at least,
pleasantly as well as suggestively, and still more to find the orator
insisting that it must have the same large scope as is claimed for it by
the philosopher. Where Aristotle and Cicero agree, we may feel sure.
Cicero has been disparaged as a maker of phrases. That he is certainly.
“They write Latin,” says Newman[2] of other great authors; “Cicero
writes Roman.” His own style is the final answer to his detractors. He
is evidently, indeed, a very conscious man of letters, and filed his
speeches for publication; but can we deny vigor of thought to the maker
of such vigorous phrase without lapsing into the separation of style from
substance? Mere style is incredible—unless, as no one pretends of Cicero,
the style is bad. So much _a priori_; and in fact his works will bear
analysis. But he is not creative. He clarifies the thoughts of others
and brings them to bear. His habit and skill are not at all scientific.
His achievement is of style to the extent that it is an achievement of
presentation. What he says of rhetoric, for instance, others have said
before him; he says it better, more clearly, more vividly. He says it so
much better, indeed, that his phrase has a certain finality. It witnesses
not only his extraordinary command of diction, but also his constant
awareness of human implications. His very diffuseness springs from his
constant sense of how people think and feel while they hear and read. In
all this he is typically the orator.
_DE ORATORE_
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account