It
was interesting to come across Book I chapter 27, where Antonius discusses fear
associated with public speech. I typically fall into the ranks of the quiet
ones (or at least that is what I want to do). It is an act of forcing myself to utterances in classroom settings while
class is in session. I have gotten much better at it than I used to be. And my fear has reduced as well (probably thanks to old age and cynicism). I
had never considered before reading this that this fear could affect
professional speakers as well (ancients included).
Antonius pretty well nailed the processes behind this fear too. First, and I'm paraphrasing (I hope
correctly), that this might be the speech where things go wrong and second, that by
flubbing up the speech, we be branded stupid by our hearers (a famous example can be found in the last paragraph). He calls it a
justifiable fear, which is not comforting to me. It means that things can and
do go wrong (I agree) and that when they do, the speaker is branded
redorkulous. For me, I’m afraid I’ll always probably suck at oratory, for my tongue remains fat and cumbersome but wants to work faster than my
brain (which is off topic, thinking poetically). Practice can answer some of that question, but practice isn't always an option (notice that Antonius doesn't offer any advice to supplement his observation?).
To
make matters worse, Antonius a bit further on describes the requirements of
orators as having, “the subtlety of the logician, the thoughts of the
philosopher, a diction almost poetic, a lawyer’s memory, a tragedian’s voice
and the bearing almost of the consummate actor”(Bk.I Ch. 28). Bringing this
back to the classroom setting, I know that is not what is required for adequate
class participation, but I remember the days when I felt inadequate to offer
anything of use because I lacked some of the natural abilities Antonius listed.
In
the grander scheme of this topic, I wonder what demands modern rhetorics hold
to orators. I suppose that is up to the hearers. I mean, if this guy can win
two terms, and speech is still a factor in the public arena of the world of politics, those demands must have lightened up a little... right?
“the subtlety of the logician, the thoughts of the philosopher, a diction almost poetic, a lawyer’s memory, a tragedian’s voice and the bearing almost of the consummate actor”(Bk.I Ch. 28). I agree; those are some pretty high standards. And I think these requirements can still apply in some circles--going back to your president example, we watch like hawks on what these people are saying, and are ready to jump down their throats if there's a mistake. I think rhetoric really depends on audience, and the specific time and place. Those requirements would be a little over the top in a classroom setting, but more appropriate for the UN (as an off the cuff example). I think it fits with Cicero in that he was a lawyer, and he would have to hold to those requirements to be good at rhetoric in the sphere he was practicing in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you here and it plays into my post where I argued that knowledge and eloquence are not dependent on each other and I think this is a tragedy. I'm also a more quiet one and wish that evidence of intelligence were not so dependent on eloquence and wish persuasion was more dependent on accuracy than delivery. However, this is an "unpractical and unattainable" ideal (300) because since accuracy of knowledge is so relative, persuasion always boils down to good delivery which should not take a part in decision making of important matters. But disagreement is inevitable so what can you do.
ReplyDelete