According to Moses Hadas, the editor, and author of the “Introduction” to “The Basic Works of Cicero,” Cicero’s argument attempts to give oratory the same educational basis as science by way of “universal education for the the orator” (171). He makes his case by telling a story of two brothers: Crassus, who wants to raise oratory to the status of science, and “Antonius who denies it” (171). The editor states that the persuasive eloquence of Cicero “lulls the reader into obliviousness of [the] essential weakness in the argument:” the argument doesn’t “set up a philosophical principle” required to connect oratory with science (172). On the Orator from which this excerpt is taken is a book addressed to Cicero's brother Quintus and has the form of an epistolary.
I wanted to see if Cicero considered both science and oratory as being arts. If so then at least in name some philosophical principle connected the two disciplines. Cicero states his argument about his brother believing that oratory should "be kept quite distinct from the higher learning, and made to rest on a certain combination of natural gifts and training" whereas he believes "that eloquence is inseparable from all the accomplishments of the profoundest erudition" (174). We can see from his use of the word “higher” that oratory is subordinate to science and that utilitarianism must have been the driving force behind education. He goes on to question "why it is that other men have won distinction in all the other arts than in oratory." So, Cicero conflates science with "arts" and not the other way around and further states that "you [Quintus] will find that in any given branch of art." For me, the question becomes one of translation since I doubt Cicero could be so blatant as to conflate science with art and expect his audience not to perceive it as a trick. Such an action would seem to invalidate to some extent the editor's opinion that the author's eloquence "lulls the reader into obliviousness." And, especially so because the conflation takes place immediately after Cicero's claim.
If utilitarianism is the driving force behind education then how does Cicero’s argument fail to “set up a philosophical principle” between science and oration? The basis for the equal education of both orator and engineer to me seems to be that societies as systems would have to depend on both the skills of the orator as much as or more than that of the engineer, the military leader or those in the sciences. Does Cicero argue that point? Cicero begins persuasion by noting the rarity of excellent orators and idealizes their qualities when he questions “[w]hat again, is so royal an exercise of liberality and munificence as to bring help to the distressed, to raise the afflicted, to protect the rights of our fellow-citizens, to free them from danger, and save them from exile?” (182). He goes on to imply that orators give the citizens “a weapon with which [they] can secure [their] attack enemies of the state” and avenge themselves when provoked. To me then he builds the connection between the sciences and oratory by setting up the two as being equally indispensable for a society to function. Whether or not this may be considered a philosophical principle required, according to the editor, to connect oratory to science, I do not know and do not have the philosophical credibility to make such a claim.
I liked Cicero’s statement that oratory is “the profession of eloquence.” And, I kind of get the idea that Cicero did not have as much regard for the utilization of the skills of the orator by society as much as he appreciated the beauty that he perceived during oration. So, I guess you could say Cicero in a way subordinated the sciences to the importance of the liberal arts. In this way, which I cannot easily describe other than from the sense that I got while reading, Cicero failed to "set up [the] philosophical principle” required to connect oratory with science.
No comments:
Post a Comment