How can we (2008 students and rhetors) use Cicero’s canons of rhetoric? For what purpose were they intended in his time? How might a culture’s power structure influence how those canons would or could be used? Cicero’s 5 canons of rhetoric were established after Rome took power over the Greek empire. Because Cicero learned both Greek and Roman rhetoric, he gained an edge in the study of the discipline over many others. His five divisions of the study of rhetoric- Invention, Arrangement, Expression, Memory, and Delivery- provided easily understood segments for speech writers to follow. Invention allows the speech writer to investigate his or her topic- we have to narrow down to a specific discussion on the topic so that we can focus our studying in that area. Since many of us majored in communication, we understand how a speech can be divided into arrangements, based on the type of speech it is- informative, persuasive, and so on. Each speech contains an introduction, a body and a conclusion, for example. Expression concerns many of the root ideas of rhetoric, because it focuses on our command of language and style to get our ideas delivered properly. A speechmaker or orator must be situation- appropriate, clear and accurate but also be well trained in how to make words come alive and strike a chord with their audience. Memory allows us to have a real knowledge of our speech, and instead of reading we can connect with our audience in a more authentic manner. This leads to delivery- how we speak, how we connect with our audience, and how we portray ourselves in front of a crowd so we can come across as credible and interesting. The five canons were originally intended to provide a template for understanding and methodically discussing a speech. They also were intended to allow those who studied rhetoric to be able to sub-divide a long speech into manageable courses of study (Herrick,p98.)How the structure is followed does depend on who is speaking and how intellectually the audience would be able to pick apart their arguments or points. Someone not well trained in rhetoric may not deliver their speech effectively, thus wiping out the success of any of the other four canons and rendering their speech ineffective and not very memorable.
Cicero held that eloquence had been separated from another crucial factor in Roman rhetoric. What is that factor, and why did he believe them should be re-united? Is the union of these factors important to effective public communication today? Cicero believed that eloquence was divided from wisdom. He used Plato’s work in “Gorgias” to bring his point home. He attacked this work of Plato’s by saying that the philosopher had separated the two qualities and therefore made it seem as though wise speakers or those well studied in rhetoric were not actually eloquent speakers, and that the Sophists came across as more eloquent and well-spoken in Gorgias. Cicero’s aim was to unite wisdom AND eloquence, so that those who studied rhetoric could rely on their teachers to show them how to speak and how to think, thus bringing together “the tongue and the brain” (Herrick, p103). This is a very important distinction, because today we hear many of those who are well-spoken who are not intelligent about what they are speaking. How can people make the choices on who they should listen to and believe if they cannot see the difference between a speaker being well versed in their subject, and actually knowing their subject well? Cicero had said he believed that it was a “cardinal sin” to “depart from the language of everyday life” (Herrick, p103) and I agree. Why would a speaker take another tone or use a less familiar choice of wording unless they were a façade? Also, he explained that without real knowledge of a topic, the speaker is lost in a “ridiculous swirl of verbiage”- something which is so familiar to us watching the Presidential campaigns right now (Herrick, p103). Using normal dialect to the audience provides them with comfort, familiarity, and a sense of confidence- but veering too far off the intellectual path in a speech can be harmful too. Speakers should strike a balance and still rise above the audience enough to be unique, without coming across as unintelligent or too ordinary. (Think of our current President when he pronounces words incorrectly. What effect does this have on his audience?)
Quintilian believed that an effective orator must be a good person. Why? How important is one’s personal goodness today in evaluating effective public discourse? Quintilian believed the successful and effective speaker should wholly benefit Roman society, and thus he must be someone to look up to, someone honorable in the eyes of the audience and of his fellow citizens. This is a distinctive belief, never before had a philosopher of rhetoric talked about the orator needing to be considered a good person. A good person would thoroughly research and define his subject for the benefit of the audience and of himself, using the art of rhetoric to give back to society in a virtuous manner. Some of what Quintilian believed is evident in the study of Ethos, or the characteristic of a speaker to have good character and credibility- but Quintilian did not think of rhetoric as something by which to use Ethos as a means to persuade. This “honorable person” quality is extremely important to preventing the inherent danger of rhetoric which we studied when we read about Plato. He believed that rhetoric that was not for the good of society could be dangerous to listen to, and this ties in to Quintilian’s beliefs. It is ultimately up to our society to elect those in power of our country, for example, by listening and judging how the speak and act. If their speeches do not match up to their character, or if their actions suggest they are not moral people, it doesn’t matter what they say or how they speak. If we do not have respect for our management in a corporate setting, how can we put stock in anything they say? This is a modern example that we can relate Quintilian’s role of the “honorable” rhetor.
SOURCES: Herrick, James A. “The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction.” Boston, MA. Pearson Education Inc. 2005.
