Plato and Cicero

We’ve covered a ton of material up to this point, and De Oratore has been the most enjoyable for me so far.  Part of my reasoning for this is the user-friendly layout of the piece, letting us know the thesis before each article; it’s been a huge help in breaking down some of the density in these selections.  However, the main likeable factor in De Oratore is how it addresses the main issues of the orator, knowledge, and persuasion as defined in previous texts.  This post will focus on the similarities and differences between De Oratore and Gorgias.

Plato vs. Cicero- In Gorgias, Socrates basically says that oratory is not the acquisition of an entire body of knowledge, but rather that it is the art of persuasion.  In contrast, Cicero claims that the ideal orator “needs a wide education.” (299a, heading)  I find both of these points to be necessary for a successful orator, however I side a little more with Socrates on this.  A skilled persuader can coax an audience into believing that he is knowledgeable even if he is not, but a solely knowledgeable person has no tools to convey their knowledge without persuasion.

Plato in alliance with Cicero- Both figures consider whether or not oratory is an art form, and they agree that it is not.  In Gorgias, Socrates states that, “it is not an art, but a habitude, since it has no account to give of the real nature of the things it applies, and so cannot tell the cause of any of them.” (98b) In support of this, Antonius reasons that oratory cannot be considered an art because it is reliant upon opinion more than it is reliant on knowledge.