On the Ideal Orator

by Marcus Tullius Cicero, Jakob Wisse (translator), James M. May (Translator)

In On the Ideal Orator , ( De oratore ), Cicero, the greatest Roman orator and prosewriter of his day, gives his mature views on rhetoric, oratory, and philosophy. Cast in the lively, literary form of a dialogue, this classic work presents a daring view of the orator as the master of all language communication while still emphasizing his role at the heart of Roman society and politics. Cicero's conception of the ideal orator represents his own original synthesis of the positions of the philosophers and the rhetoricians in the age-old quarrel between these disciplines.
The first translation of De oratore in over fifty years, this volume is ideal for courses on Cicero and on the history of rhetoric/oratory. James May and Jakob Wisse provide an accurate and accessible translation which is based on--and contributes to--recent advances in our understanding of De oratore and of the many aspects of ancient rhetoric, philosophy, and history relevant to it. Their translation reflects the many variations of Cicero's style, which are essential ingredients of the work. The volume includes extensive annotation, based on current scholarship and offering significant original contributions as well. It is also enhanced by a full introduction covering all important aspects of both the work and its historical background; appendices on Cicero's works, figures of thought and speech, and alternate manuscript readings; a glossary of terms from rhetoric and Roman life and politics; and a comprehensive index of names and places.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Ancient, Personal Development

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 56

About the author

Born 3 January 106 BC, Arpinum, Italy
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.

Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone

Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.

Reviews

[Mark Adderley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not an easy book to read. Although it contains a lot of valuable information on rhetoric, it's all hidden behind a dialogue that Cicero obviously finds much more entertaining than I do. The contemporary references are largely lost on me, not being a classical historian, and the repartee between the various characters is probably funnier in Latin.

On the other hand, it's a valuable source of information about rhetoric, even if you have to dig for it, and contains a wealth of information too on the historical debate between the philosophers and the sophists. As a textbook for my class, a rhetoric class in a Great Books program at Wyoming Catholic College, it's really a perfect choice.

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dans cette excellente lettre que Cicéron écrit à son ami Brutus, le célèbre avocat et politicien républicain tente de répondre à la question du style le plus complet, le plus achevé, le plus parfait. Cicéron analyse donc le problème sans omettre de s'appuyer sur les épaules de Platon, d'Aristote, car si la philosophie décrie la rhétorique, elle est aussi un excellent entrainement pour ceux qui pratiquent cette dernière. On retrouve donc l'analyse d'Aristote en moins fouillé, moins systématique, mais plus naturelle et plus agréable, garnie d'exemples littéraires. Le célèbre romain n'oublie pas de passer en revue et de comparer Démosthène, auquel il voue la plus grande admiration, Hérodote, Thucydide, Xénophon, Théophraste. Il n'omet pas de ce citer lui-même, n'hésitant pas à se hisser au même rang Platon et d'Aristote.

[Ci · Rating 5 out of 5]

A particular foreshadowing question for a reader is of this book’s applicability in modern life. Under the general “communication skill”, our ability to speak tends to be confined in narrower forms of one-on-one conversations and presentations to groups. With the exception of certain professions such as performing artists in theaters, legal professionals in courts, religious or political personnels, the requirement for speaking well falls far below anything oratory. Yet, there is much to learn from Cicero’s book from the understanding of the issue at hand, to the organization of speech contents, to the style of delivery. But this book should not be appreciate merely as a “how-to” manual. It stands above a technique manual with its literary and oratory splendor.

Instead of “Art of Speaking”, this book is about the ideal orator, who possesses the ultimate perfection in oratory art. Cicero defined this perfection in both the person and the performance: the orator should possess universal knowledge, the performances should be of consummate skills and appropriateness. Is an Orator merely professional speaker? The adjective “professional” confers a distance between the person and the profession, as well as an emphasis on the performance. Not so, in Cicero’s magnificent On The Ideal Orator, the Orator is a person achieved the consummate virtue, intelligence and righteous public life.

What makes an ideal orator? The natural ability is prerequisite, while the author’s emphases are on acquiring knowledge and honing techniques. Cicero’s picture of an ideal orator is a deep universal thinker who can speak with optimal effectiveness. Hence the contents and appropriateness are the dual objectives in the oratorical performance, yet behind the performance, the orator must be the principal thinker, not a mere agent or an actor.

A few points:

Cicero reiterated the Greek’s tripartite requisites for excellence: possession of nature ability, learning of techniques, diligence in practice. In this book, Cicero particularly took issues with the narrow and rigid precepts and rules of the rhetorical schooling. Instead, he seemed to advocate a universal knowledge base including philosophies and civil laws, even though such knowledge is beyond any individual’s grasp yet it should be an ideal for aspiration. In practice, he acknowledged the feasibility of specialization and usage of aids such as legal experts.

How to praise and how to condemn. In other words, what is desirable in a person, and what is praiseworthy. This issue, at the first place, is merely technical as this distinction gives a clear form for laudatory speeches. The deeper issue lies in Cicero’s moral judgement of circumstances and personal character.

Oratory skill in playing the psychological chords. Cicero addressed the importance of arousing ethos and pathos in achieving oratory goals. In this particular book, the issue of orator’s moral conviction resides in the vague concept that he must be a “good and honorable” person. Yet what to say, what not to say, is still very much with achieving a particular outcome in mind. By careful selection and shading, without outright falsehood or contradictions, an effective orator is capable to advocate either sides. One’s fidelity to one’s paying client (the modern sense) seems to be higher than the need to achieve “truth”. In this sense, an orator is an agent, a paid speaker for a particular side, although the idea of giving weapons (such as oratory eloquence) to madman is mentioned.

Modern readers can be benefited from the discussion of proper use of language. There are many engaging examples of how to use humor and wit and avoid buffoonery, how to select words and phrases with freshness and origniality to avoid trite and hackneyed usage, the use of metaphors and metonyms, and rhythms that please both the ears and hearts of the listeners.

[Mandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent translation as far as coherence goes. Granted, I don't speak or read Latin, but I found it cogent. The arrangement on the page was excellent, particularly the way subjects were divided into sections. The outline of sections in the introduction is incredibly useful. Historiography and explanations of concepts as clarified by the introduction and footnotes were also helpful to my understanding of the text. Not to mention, Cicero was just plain logical about the way he wrote this stuff.

[Xime García · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lo tuve que leer para las clases de Retórica de Latín. Me aburrió bastante en la segunda mitad con la infinidad de ejemplos, sobretodo griegos, aunque creo que entiendo el propósito. El apunte de clase es más claro que Cicerón.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero sets up his text as a dialogue between two famous Roman orators he much admired: Antonius and Crassus. The dialogue is set in the garden of Crassus’ villa, with minor figures (Scaevola, Cotta, Caesar, etc.) coming and going as the two-day discussion unfolds. Central to the dialogue is the question of whether oratory--and rhetoric, by extension--is an art. References are made to Plato’s Phaedrus and Gorgias--particularly Plato’s Socrates’ argument that rhetoric is not an art because it has no real content and that “good” rhetoric must be undergirded by philosophical and dialectical knowledge. Early on, Crassus contends, “excellence in speaking cannot exist unless the speaker has grasped the subject he will speak about” (1.48). So Crassus forwards certain elements of Plato’s argument (the good orator must have content knowledge) but dismisses others. For instance, he places general questions (theses) within the purview of the orator--not the philosopher. Interestingly, Crassus and Antonius both adopt a sort of spirit of Socratic irony, an ethos of humility, in the dialogue. This makes sense given that Crassus at one point asserts, “the better a man speaks, the more frightened he feels about the difficulty of speaking, the unpredictable outcome of a speech, and the expectations of the audience” (1.120). Crassus and Antonius both agree that “writing as much as possible” is a key practice for the ideal orator (1.151).

The practically minded Antonius forwards the interrogation of whether oratory is an art in Book 2, rejecting the theories of philosophers and rhetoricians, to some degree respectively, as abstruse and artificial. Antonius, himself aware of his own oratory’s situationality (2.40), sees oratory as requiring an unsystematizable adaptability dependent on audience, context, etc.

Caesar gets in a nice excursus on the importance of wit and humor--including irony--to oratory’s success in the midst of the second book.

But getting back to Crassus, who wraps things up: Returning to the tiff between philosophers and orators/rhetors over the nature of rhetoric, Crassus claims that Socrates is to blame for “the rupture … between the tongue and the brain, which is quite absurd, harmful, and reprehensible” (3.61). In fact, Crassus turns the argument of the Gorgias on its head: “either [Gorgias] was never defeated by Socrates and this dialogue of Plato’s is untrue, or … Socrates was obviously … a better and more copious orator” (3.129), thus positing a sort of philosopher-orator as he moves through his final remarks on style and delivery (3.142).

[Ivanko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Puno se ovo može skratit, a da se ne izgubi ni jedna bitna nit, jer ovdje ima puno nebitnih dijaloga između Cicerona, Scevole, Krasa i Marka Antonija koji su u većini slučaja nerazumljivi ako ne znate cjelokupnu povjest antičkog govorništva. Daju se neki naputci o biti govornika što i daje vrijednost ovoj knjizi, ali onima koji se ne bave ovim i nemaju ovo u literaturi na faksu ne bi preporučio.


6/10

I.J.

[Ryan Denson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This volume contains the first two of the three books of Cicero’s De Oratore. Despite being a fairly outdated translation (1942), it holds up quite well due to the highly technical nature of the subject matter. There are only a few instances in which the editor makes questionable or awkward choices for translating the original Latin text.

The content of De Oratore itself is very enjoyable too. Cicero frames it in the style of a Socratic dialogue, a format that works immensely well here. Although it sounds incredibly boring to read the conversation of a bunch of ancient Roman lawyers discussing oratory, it is actually quite a lively read. There is plenty of advice that would be useful for modern public speaking such as intonation, earning the audience’s favor, appeals to emotions, and how to arrange the material. A lengthy discussion on the role of witticisms, bons mots, and other types of jests also helps remind us that public speaking does not always have to be such an overly staid affair.

This is an excellent read for anyone interested in the art of rhetoric and of how to form tenable argument. It is a slow read at first, with the most pertinent information being found in book two, but it is certainly worth the time.

[John Cairns · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is exceptional. You couldn't get a better book on oratory since by a master orator who's also a great writer and successfully fictionalises setting and characters to give agreeably what anybody wanting to become an orator would need to know. The only caveat must be who would nowadays. A few MPs but, as Cicero points out, oratory is more appropriate to public meetings than a Senate. It was no longer of much use when power lies with two or three men, probably the reason he wrote it, to write it out.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I'd read this earlier in life, like in high school. It may have encouraged me to do more public speaking. Cicero's vision, though, is not merely of an entertainer. Cicero's orator is a multi-subject genius, and the backbone of the Republic. The closest modern idea might be certain idealistic portrayals of lawyers, such as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bit of a cliffhanger for a philosophical treatice. Honestly each time they have to retire after saying something like, "say, Antonius, why don't you tell me more about this?" I just want to girl-scream and read the next book.

[Markus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reference.

[Peter Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very useful guide; potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.

[Libia Fibilo · Rating 2 out of 5]

L'idea centrale di questo libro è formare un oratore.

Dovrebbe essere un formato simposiale per stemperare la difficoltà del tema, tuttavia, ha tutta l'aria dell'accozzaglia con diffuse interpolazioni autobiografiche.

L'idea di Cicerone è piuttosto semplice e ordinata:

Personificare due stili prevalenti, quello ampolloso e aulico, pieno di coordinate subordinate (paratattico, noto col nome di Asciano) e un altro improntato alla semplicità, al ritmo serrato, all'argomentazione stringente (ipotattico, detto attico).

Fatto questo, con i vari astanti che obiettano ed esortano, c'è da proporre la persona che include i pregi di entrambi e trova una specie di via di mezzo ottimale.

Il piano è questo, e comincia con una discussione sul talento naturale e le nozioni apprese. Quanto quello aiuti o non sia sufficiente, quanto queste sopperiscano e come limitarle per non perdersi nella sconfinata arena del sapere o nella bruta erudizione.

Da qui in poi vari esempiucoli giuridici, digressioni asistematiche e tutta la paccottiglia che va bene in un canovaccio ma che pesa in un opera finita.

Si può scrivere un trattato alla Aristotele o un dialogo alla Platone. Questo mezzo e mezzo di Cicerone per me non funziona.

Non capisco come quest'uomo, che senza dubbio dové essere un eccellente avvocato, abbia trovato credito presso grandi maestri dello stile come David Hume.

Cicerone era un eclettico con tanti scrupoli di far passare alcuni plagi un po' modificati parte per opera salvatrice di lavori importanti (e qui gli va riconosciuto un grande merito) parte per sue riflessioni. Quando Cicerone ragiona da solo è essenzialmente un piagnone o un approssimativo.

Un intelletto decisamente inferiore ad Aristotele e una sensibilità artistica decisamente inferiore a Platone.

Io voto per la Retorica di Aristotele e il Sofista di Platone.

[Paco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un livre excellent à lire et à relire pour mieux comprendre ce qu'est réellement la rhétorique. À travers cet ouvrage toujours d'actualité malgré tous les siècles passés, nous comprenons que la maîtrise de la parole ne doit pas se limiter à une manipulation ou à une persuasion . Cicéron propose ici une vision nouvelle de la rhétorique, il explique d'une certaine manière pourquoi notre société a besoin d'orateurs et quel est le devoir de l'orateur vis-à-vis de cette dernière. En définitive, Cicéron nous montre une nouvelle fois l'importance des mots , le pouvoir qu'ils donnent et ce qu'est celui qui les énonce...
Ce livre est incontournable pour quiconque car il révèle en fin de compte une véritable philosophie de vie sur ce que nous faisons tous les jours: prononcer, énoncer, parler, dire... etc

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero reads well, even translated to english, but oh man those are a lot of semi-colons; give me the verb please, sir.

An analysis and exhortation for oratory through semi-fictionalised historical orators from the generation prior to Cicero’s own. Engaging, easy to follow, though Aristotle’s own work appears in a more systemised format.

[Maggie McKneely · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely clever in its presentation of both the particular tools of rhetoric and in its discussion of what/who an orator should be. It’s much more relatable than Socrates’ book on rhetoric.

However, that doesn’t mean it’s an easy read. If I hadn’t been assigned this for my rhetoric class, I never would have finished it, nor understood much of it….🥴

[Santiago González · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bastante interesante. Pretende no ser técnico, por lo que no usa tecnicismos pero eso no le quita la gran profundidad del diálogo, es la gran obra de Cicerón sobre retórica, muy recomendada. Me gusta el orador ciceroniano, que luego retomarán los renacentistas.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

The annotations and introduction are super useful and makes this translation a great alternative/update to the Loeb editions.

[nina · Rating 1 out of 5]

i hate those types of books. it’s probably good but i hated it. (school read btw)

[Corentin Miriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Court, élégant et utile

[SergioGM · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[דריה · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ta što je besmislenije nego govoriti o govorenju, kad je samo govorenje besmisleno, osim ako je neizbježno?
— May 14, 2024

[Chiggins1066 · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the greatest literary achievements of all time. Here, the full force of Cicero's intellect is unleashed. Using a form similar to Plato's "Symposium," he explores the obligations, perogatives, and ultimate goals of the "ideal orator"--the man who has both wisdom and eloquence, and who cultivates the practical and speculative virtues. Contained here is the most compelling and profound definition of rhetoric ever produced.

[Mandy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was for class, so for me a decent amount of background knowledge on Cicero and On the Ideal Orator is necessary, but beyond that I generally find classical dialogues tedious, and this was no exception. However, I was pleasantly surprised that the section on wit and humor was both interesting and relevant.

[Zachary Rudolph · Rating 3 out of 5]

“By all means, if they wish, let the philosophers get on with discussing these matters in their own secluded corners, to pass an idle hour. All the same, the man who will have to set forth, with all the power and attractiveness he can muster, the themes which these philosophers have been discoursing about (in their tame and bloodless way) is the orator.”

[Isabel · Rating 4 out of 5]

(I only read Book I, but this looks quite useful indeed)

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

rhetoric at its most ideal

[Kirk Kittell]

Scanned copy on Google Books: De Oratore

[Eszter Beáta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero sais that a rhetor has to be familiar also with the philosophy, and has to speak every time in the best style. He tells a lot also about the rithm in the text, and about other topics.