In the Public Eye

     After reading through Cicero from De Oratore, rereading at some spots, I am noticing the evolution of rhetoric from its uncertain origins to what it has become in the modern world.  At times I still have trouble understanding every point our authors are trying to make because their explanations are based on examples of an ancient everyday life I am entirely unfamiliar with.  That being said, there are a number of things to take away from this piece.
     By my understanding, Cicero's rhetoric was a collaborative effort between those who work to inform and include the public, allowing their intellectual capacity and gift of voice to be their only selfless motivation.  In other words, the general public is what makes up the society in which we live.  Those select few with specific oratory capabilities are responsible to distribute their knowledge to the majority population.
     I agreed with many of Cicero's arguments of what the proper orator should embody.  One of the most basic was his assertion that orator's be perceptive of their audience, realizing each person understands the same topic differently.  A legitimate orator must be able to explain their stance in multiple different ways as to make sure everyone understands what they initially were attempting to set forth.  Just typing this makes it sound confusing.  Speakers hope for a certain response, but often get something entirely unexpected.  By Cicero's definition, this is not a good orator because the speaker was unprepared for the rebuttal.  I think of those ink portraits they use in psychology, the subjects being asked what they see in the drawings.  Each person sees what they want to see, almost always something different.  I think this can be applied to this discourse as described by Cicero.  An orator must be prepared for a response they had not thought of themselves.
     I liked Cicero's means by which to be prepared for this instance and many others.  He emphasized the need for an orator to dive into their community culture, coming to understand all different realms and sects of people by what subjects they are driven by.  He states, "[f]or if everyone who, while outstanding in some art and capacity, has embraced another art as well, is thereby to create the belief that such subsidiary knowledge is a specific part of that wherein he excels" (312).  In this statement, I think he is trying to say there is no end to knowledge, regardless of one's mastery on any subject or school of knowledge.  There is always something new to learn and experience.  In this absorption, one must take their knowledge and apply it elsewhere to know its true value within society.  What is one without the other?  This question can be applied to any number or relationships.
     These ideas help me to understand Cicero's idea of the rounded argument and its ability to persuade.  An orator must be aware of his audience, for many almost certainly do not share the same educational backgrounds, economic standings, or general interests and motivations.  An orator must have experiences outside his own specialty to even have what he needs to make an argument for all to understand.  His argument(s) will be acknowledged based on its delivery, its worth determined only after the fact.
     Many of these ideas remain prevalent today.  I think of political speeches, acceptance speeches, cause promotion or even public apologies.  Paula Deen anyone?  None of these will be considered genuine or taken seriously if they don't follow some of Cicero's now-ingrained rules of eloquent speech and overall understanding of the topic being spoken upon.