"Nothing therefore is more rarely found among mankind than a consummate orator; for qualifications which professors of other arts are commended for acquiring in a moderate degree, each in his respective pursuit, will not be praised in the orator, unless they are all combined in him in the highest possible excellence.”These are the words of Antonius. It seems to me he is stating that to be an outstanding orator is a challenge greater than being excellent in any other field, which, at first glance, is not an easy statement to believe. Really? It is more difficult to be a good speaker than a good doctor? A good physicist? A good civil engineer, who literally holds the safety of entire populations in the quality of his work? Surely, to merely speak of phenomena, rather than actually create and execute them, is by no means as difficult.
I don't think any rationale being can equate the challenges of being a surgeon with the trials of being a public communicator. But I don't think think this was what Antonius meant to do It is the "consumate" part of his statement that renders it plausible. A surgeon can learn his incredibly hard task over a period of twelve to fifteen years, after which point he could be a staff member at a hospital. Sure, he'll keep on learning and gaining experience but, for the most part, he IS a surgeon, a binary thing. Thus, there are a great many surgeons, and a relatively large number we'd refer to as "good" surgeons.
Now let us look at our present-day orators--newscasters, comedians, authors, filmmakers. How many of these do we consider good? There are not very many. An orator does not simply obtain a degree in oration, do an internship, and then be considered by anyone to be an orator. Rather, she must gain the respect of the society, they must collectively consider her to in fact be an orator. This takes great time and great skill, and is an ever evolving learning process. She must constantly adapt.
So though anyone can say they are an orator, can even have a degree in a communication related field, a very select few are considered by the people to actually be our societies orators. There is only one John Stewart, Steven King, Quintin Tarantino.
I think that in order to look at why he thought orators were so important, it is necessary to look at the context in which he was writing. Many more people died due to a lack of medical advancements, so I am sure a surgeon did not look as credible as he does now. Which brings me to ethos, how much of credibility is based on advancements through time/context/and technology? John Stewart would not be as effective had it not been for the technology of television or videos. If he was speaking on the street, how much of us would listen (that is if we didn't know he was the John Stewart). I believe that oratory back then had more clout because of the time period and the way the culture did things. Not only in developments of philosophy and politics, but also in religion. Looking at both Islam and Christianity they are founded in great oratory that created followers, I wonder if this would be the equivalent to following people on twitter now? And maybe the difference is that we just aren't realizing it yet.
ReplyDelete