This week’s reading discusses the qualities of a skilled orator.

The first reading, Cicero’s De Oratore, sets out on the premise that in order to be a good orator, one must be a good man. He then argues that writing is a prerequisite of an effective speech, because it allows us to more clearly rationalize and organize our thoughts before we attempt to present them to an audience.

Next, Quintilian’s Institute of Oratory: Book 12 is devoted to Cicero’s initial argument that an immoral or evil man cannot be a talented orator for several reasons-namely, that a bad man lacks the wisdom and eloquence necessary to be an effective speaker. 

In Cicero’s Catiline Orations, he addresses the senate of Rome demanding punishment of Catiline, a traitor to the Empire who plotted an attack against Rome. In his first oration, Cicero follows his own advice from De Oratore:

that the case should be clearly stated; then, that the point in controversy should be established; then, that what we maintain should be supported by proof, and that whatever was said on the other side should be refuted; and that, in the conclusion of our speech, whatever was in our favour should be amplified and enforced, and whatever made for our adversaries should be weakened and invalidated

Cicero aptly structures his argument by first calling out Cataline for his ongoing conspiracy. With this initial accusation, Cicero draws attention to the villain’s treacherous acts. Cicero then demands an appropriate sentence for Catiline by laying out his crimes against the Empire and mentioning that criminals in the past have been executed for lesser deeds. He continues his speech by suggesting exile for the felon, and gives a series of reasons for why Catiline deserves this punishment. For one, his infamy and unpopularity throughout Rome, and further, the termination of the uprising which he had started. Finally, Cicero skillfully wraps up his first oration by appealing to his audience by promising the suppression of the conspiracy and the salvation of Rome.

Furthermore, I appreciate how Cicero successfully villainizes the traitor by mentioning and then minimizing his own personal issues with the conspirator, choosing instead to focus on Catiline as a threat to the empire as a whole:

In short, as often as you attacked me, I by myself opposed you, and that, too, though I saw that my ruin was connected with great disaster to the republic. [12] But now you are openly attacking the entire republic. You are summoning to destruction and devastation the temples of the immortal gods, the houses of the city, the lives of all the citizens; in short, all Italy.  Wherefore, since I do not yet venture to do that which is the best thing, and which belongs to my office and to the discipline of our ancestors, I will do that which is more merciful if we regard its rigour, and more expedient for the state. For if I order you to be put to death, the rest of the conspirators will still remain in the republic; if as I have long been exhorting you, you depart, your companions, those worthless dregs of the republic, will be drawn off from the city too.

Throughout this first oration, Cicero effectively portrays himself as an admirable defendant of the Roman Empire, while villianizing Cataline and turning Rome (rightly so) against him and his fellow conspirators. In this sense, Cicero, according to Quintilian’s Book of Oratory, is a good orator because he is presented as a good man. Book 12 notes that “It is important that an orator should be good because, should the power of speaking be a support to evil, nothing would be more pernicious than eloquence alike to public concerns and private.” In this case, therefore, Cicero’s eloquence in defense of such a public concern is a testament to his goodness. His virtuous plea for his country qualifies him as a noble man, and thus, a good orator.

However, I personally struggle with Quintilian’s Book of Oratory’s claim that all gifted speakers are good men. Throughout history, we have seen otherwise. One infamous example is Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Germany responsible for the death of millions in the 1940s massacre of Jewish Europeans. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are extensive and indubitable. In no way was he a “good man” in terms of virtue or contribution. And yet, I think it is also undeniable that he was a “good orator.” Firsthand accounts and history books describe the dictator as charismatic and persuasive. If he could convince an entire army to carry out the inhumane actions they did, his arguments must have been well-structured and compelling.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-grtEk9oBAU

While Hitler is an extreme example of an immoral person but an effective speaker, countless other individuals have been a similar combination. Dictators, gang leaders, and even playground bullies often possess strong oratory skills that earn them rings of followers to carry out their malevolent plots. Sadly, our world is full of pain, suffering and brutality, all administered through some sort of organized crime. If all “good orators” were “good men,” I highly doubt this would be the case.