Cicero on Oratory - LIII LIV

Cicero on Oratory - LIII LIV

The video discusses Cicero's views on oratory, specifically focusing on the case of P. Rutilius Rufus, who faced accusations and managed his defense with integrity, contrasting it with the lack of emotion shown by advocates during such trials. Cicero argues that true oratory should evoke genuine emotion and response from the audience, rather than conforming to stoic ideals that suppress emotional expression.

Key Points:

Cicero analyzes Rutilius Rufus's case
Cicero recounts how Rutilius Rufus handled accusations against him with integrity, rejecting the use of emotional appeals during his trial, which ultimately did not resonate with the public or evoke a sympathetic response. This highlights the conflict between stoic values and effective oratory.

Critique of Emotional Detachment in Oratory
Cicero criticizes the practice of oratory that adheres strictly to philosophical stoicism which prevents advocates from expressing genuine emotions during a trial. He believes that effective oratory must be able to stir the audience's feelings, thus leading to a more resonant and persuasive defense.

Comparison with Socrates' Trial
Cicero draws parallels with Socrates' trial where Socrates maintained a dignified stance, asserting his worthiness for honors rather than pleading for mercy. This approach, while admirable, ultimately led to his condemnation, suggesting that emotional appeals, when appropriate, are necessary for a defense.

The Distinction Between Oratory and Philosophy
Cicero argues that while philosophy can inform oratory, the two should be seen as distinct disciplines. Oratory can exist in its highest form independently from philosophical teachings, indicating that rhetoric's nature allows for emotional engagement to achieve its purpose.