It seems that in rhetoric, the art of proper and beautiful verbal expression, Marcus Tullius Cicero had no equal. Having acquired a broad legal education from famous Roman jurists, Cicero turned to Greek philosophy and rhetoric, first studying under the Athenian Epicurean Phaedrus, and then under Diodotus, who taught him Stoic philosophy.
Cicero actively participated in politics as a quaestor, aedile, praetor, and consul. As a Roman statesman, he realized that rhetoric, along with philosophy, could be of great benefit in achieving justice in the state. At the same time, its danger to the state was evident, as well as to the individual citizen if its connection to philosophy was broken, and thus it becomes what it often is today in everyday speech – empty talk, empty words.
Rhetoric and philosophy
Rhetoric as the art of verbal expression is an ancient skill. Egyptian papyri, Sumerian reliefs, Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as numerous remnants of prehistoric civilizations, all bear witness to this skill. However, it was Cicero who elevated rhetoric to the level of true art, merging it with philosophy and recognizing its potential for influencing public opinion and shaping government policies. By combining eloquence with wisdom, Cicero sought to achieve not only the power of persuasion, but also the promotion of virtue and the pursuit of justice. The speeches of American politicians point out to us the importance of spoken word in politics, trade, spreading various knowledge, and generally in public life. However, it is only from the ancient Greeks that we have more detailed knowledge about rhetoric. At the same time, we inherit from the Greeks the disputes and controversies about the true nature of rhetorical skill. It seems that the conflict between sophistry and philosophy comes to the fore precisely in the question of the purpose and meaning of spoken words. Does speech serve the mediation of truth or is its purpose exhausted in the mere creation of persuasion regardless of the truth itself?
In his work Gorgias, Plato criticizes the rhetorical skill that is without a philosophical foundation and its sophistic use, as he believed that it thus becomes a kind of flattery and pandering that does not seek any good, but only creates a pleasant appearance of reality. Sophistic rhetoric is actually the skill to skillfully persuade through speech: it pays the most attention to creating persuasion in the listener, while it cares little about truth.
This is particularly dangerous if applied Ethical and political issues are intertwined. Speech, undoubtedly a powerful means of influencing people and their destinies, becomes dangerous if it is not based on true knowledge, as the speaker’s skill then only causes harm and damage. In itself, and taken on its own, speech can enchant, persuade, convert, and transform. Moreover, it can create convictions in the listener that would otherwise be completely foreign to them, diverting them from their own beliefs and habits, causing them to act in ways they would not normally do. Always dependent on the speaker themselves, speech affects the soul: sometimes as a remedy, and sometimes as poison.
Ciceronian rhetoric
In Cicero’s time, rhetorical skill was a necessary prerequisite for success in public life. Its value was thoroughly tested in court and in the senate. Moreover, many Roman military leaders diligently tried to speak well and correctly before their legions. However, it was always held above all that the credibility of speech should not be separated from the speaker’s dignity. The skill of rhetoric is both beneficial and harmful because, due to a lack of knowledge in philosophy, the speaker could unintentionally present what is bad as good, what is false as true, and vice versa. Cicero included his main work, “On the Orator” (De Oratore), in his philosophical work, thus emphasizing the close connection between rhetoric and philosophy.
Cicero includes a clear voice, physical strength, strong chest, facial and body shape, and cultivated gestures in the essential assumptions of rhetorical skill.
Commenting on Aristotle’s work “Rhetoric,” Cicero emphasizes that the speaker must harmoniously unite the virtues of a philosopher, poet, moralist, and actor-artist.
From the philosopher, they will adopt a love for wisdom and truth. From the poet, they will take on musical inspiration that connects heavenly and earthly things, elevating everything it touches. Indeed, according to Cicero, poetry is closely related to rhetoric, so he also demands from the poet not only to have talent but also to know the rules of rhetoric. Rhetoric must never be Dry, “cold-logical”, through it must speak emotions because it is related to art, to poetics and creativity. Enthusiasm is the driving force of rhetorical skill. Of course, a good speaker must not only have a good command of the subject but also have a talent. As in many other things, especially in art, mediocrity doesn’t help much. And in the art of words, Cicero himself was one of the greatest rhythmicians who ever lived.
Furthermore, from moralists, a good speaker will take on their preoccupation with virtues, incorruptibility, integrity, and sincerity. Finally, from an actor-artist, they will take on the enthusiasm for expressing ideas through feelings, making the listeners tremble in accordance with the “spiritual winds” echoing in the speaker and spreading to the audience.
Rhetoric and empty talk
Unlike ordinary speech, according to Cicero, speech is capable of capturing the mind with wise thoughts, caressing the ear with beautiful words, moving the hearts of the people, providing decisive advice, removing doubts.
to protect the innocent, help the distressed, save the oppressed, liberate the persecuted, uplift the weak, humble the arrogant, transform the doubtful, imprison the renegades, support justice and refute injustice. (About the speaker) In order to create such an impression, the speaker’s words must have harmony and beauty, wisdom and excellence. Likewise, appealing to the heart should not neglect the appeal to the mind and reason. In speech, there must be a balance between reason and emotion. Without this balance, we return to old disputes, because an appeal to blind desires leads more to manipulation and demagoguery. The line between persuasion and seduction is thin, often crossed in favor of demagoguery in modern times.
Persuasion is a rhetorical tool for gaining public support for one’s goals, which may have no connection to justice and truth. This is why the success of political demagoguery, so often tested and proven in today’s world, has motivated experimental psychology to use its effects for the purpose of economic advertising. Modern political and economic. Rhetoric took care to translate the concepts of classical rhetoric into the language of contemporary advertising and political demagoguery, and thereby deeply distorted rhetoric itself. Political propaganda and advertising of products in the market no longer appeal to will, reason, heart, and consciousness, as advised by Cicero, but rather to the subconscious and instincts of the message recipient.
It seems that the culture of means has replaced the love for truth. Thus, rhetoric acquires connotations of empty babbling – empty words, letters without substance, words that often mean the opposite of what they claim to be.
However, there is a noticeable saturation with empty words, as well as a soulless culture of means. Reducing life to formalism, including the formalism of words and rhetoric, creates resistance. Brainwashing and slogans are becoming less fashionable. This opens up prospects for a new rhetoric, which will surely find inspiration in the rhetoric of Marcus Tullius Cicero.
1 It is interesting what the French philosopher Pascal says about eloquence: “Eloquence consists, on the one hand, in the connection…” which the speaker establishes between the mind and the heart, and on the other hand, between thoughts and the expressions he uses. (Blaise Pascal, Thoughts)