The Intangible Rules of Rhetoric

Cicero’s De Oratore at long last confirmed what I have suspected for a long time: that there are no hard and fast rules to rhetoric.  Every rhetor or rhetorician will frame the art differently, depending on his or her particular lens of interest.  

Within his text, Cicero presents a group of people in discussion about the requirements of good oratory and orators; all members of this group (even members like Sulpicius and Cotta) seem to possess at least some knowledge about as well as strong opinions on this subject.  They all make what I would deem both good and bad points, but what is most evident is that no “litmus test” is commonly employed to determine whether or not a certain piece of rhetorical theory is “right” other than how well it gels with one’s own reasoning. 

For example…Crassus claims that an orator must be a master of the law, while Antonius insists that an orator only needs the help of persons who versed in the law by trade (315).  I’m sure that any individual gifted with the ability to persuade through argument follows an individual strategy based on his or her preexisting talents.  Surely such strategies are also modified to suit varying arguments and rhetorical situations.  As is encapsulated in a heading on page 304, “there is not a science” to oratory “in the strict sense, but experience can furnish it with a set of rules.”  I have no doubt that this proper “set of rules” varies from orator to orator (although I did appreciate the approbation of nervousness before speaking provided by Crassus on page 306).  

Earlier, I was frustrated by the ambiguity of rhetoric, and wished for more concrete rules.  Presently, I’m intrigued by how creative rhetoric could possibly be, and think I understand why I more often hear it called an “art” than a “field.”