The biggest underlying theme that I noticed in De Oratore was how wide of a topic rhetoric is. Cicero's elders were engaged in a lengthy argument about just how much an orator must study in order to be great. Crassus is of the opinion that great orators are extremely rare, because they must be exhaustively educated in all arts and sciences in order to be great, and they must also have a natural talent. Nobody else who was engaged in the argument seemed to be in agreement with Crassus. They thought that if one was properly educated in the techniques of good oratory, and had talent, that whenever a certain situation arose, in which they were not fully educated on, they could research the topic before giving the speech; that mastering all arts and sciences is not a practical expectation.
As a writing major, I have actually given a lot of thought to this argument in the past. As a writer (and a wanna-be rhetor/rhetorician) I specialize in the techniques of writing. But if I have limited knowledge in other fields, what the hell am I supposed to write about with eloquence? People across different disciplines have to write in order to do their job. But my only job is to write.
That being said, I am educated in more than just the field of writing, and I do have things I want to say and write. It's just that I have more on my plate than the average Joe. I'm not only becoming an expert in the field of writing, but I need to study the things I will write about if I want to persuade anyone or, much less, even be coherent.
I think that Crassus really overshot the mark with his unrealistic expectations. I side more with the other elders. When I need to write about something I am not educated about, I will research it. I certainly don't have the time to major in everything at MSU.
I have also thought about this argument. Here's the rub. People in fields not typically considered conducive to creative discourse write for their peers within their discipline. Fore example, there is a clear rhetoric in the science journal article: only use passive verbs; do NOT use a single personal pronoun...ever; adjectives are forbidden; use ginormous words that have to broken in pieces to be defined. These pieces of writ are absolutely useless to the general public, and if you ask a scientist to explain their theory in human terms, you get more of the same (this is an over generalization). It is up to someone who has an inclination to writing (us) to take that science journal article and put strong active verbs in it, personalize the researcher and their research (i.e. figure out how their theory affects the rest of us), and fill in the dry spots with adjectives and metaphor. We are needed to tell the story. :)
ReplyDeleteI found this discussion to be very interesting, and it rang very true in my own life. As students at a university, we are constantly under pressure to know what we want to do with our lives, what field we want to pursue. At an age as young as ours, this is a somewhat frightening proposition--it is a terrible thing to feel "locked in" to one path for always and eternity.
ReplyDeletePLease don't let this be offensive to anyone in one major or another, it is simply the process I've gone through the last couple of years. Like Cicero's elders, I too wondered whether or not studying rhetoric, aka writing, solely and with no background in a specific field would be worthwhile. I determined that it was not, that to communicate effectively one needs skills in writing or oratory, sure, but one must have something to talk ABOUT.
As the elders stated so passionately, those who say they can speak to any question, in any field, are not respectable.I believe that to be able to be persuasive in any area is certainly a gift, but, to be the most useful to our society, I will be better off being able to write well and about an area in which I am versed.
It is impossible to be learned in every field.