So before I get started on my main point, I would like to comment on the fact that reading excerpts from Roman rhetorical conversations is very interesting when compared to Greek debate because the Greeks were laying the foundation of what rhetoric would become, without any history to go back on. The Romans kept referring to their rhetorical schooling and had the Greek rhetorical background. There were many times when the Romans referenced the Greeks in their debate, and it almost seemed like an insult. "Your views are like those of the Greek philosophers" (167). That's like us saying, "you talk like my grandma!"
Anyway, comparing De Inventione to De Oratore was much like a coming of age thing, as so many people have mentioned before (I think Spencer had a great take on this.). However, I think I will branch out a little bit and build off of those who posted before me. People have commented that it seems like Cicero had more life experience when he wrote so De Oratore, and I agree, but would ask, why does it seem that way? My answer: emotion and pathos. Before Cicero got into the "real world," or took off his training wheels, his writing read like a dictionary. However, once he learned a little more about rhetoric he realized how important it was to engage the listener in more pathetic appeals. Humor, style, and emotion were emphasized in De Oratore much more than they ever would have been if it had been written by the Cicero who wrote De Inventione.  |
| I've actually had to read this textbook for a class last year. Wasn't that bad... |
Do you think that he needed to have a dialogue format in order to get his point across about emotions? Could he not have simply stated the facts about emotion in the same way he stated facts in de inventione? I would argue that since he didn't use character emotion much, just them talking, he could have changed the form and not lost anything. But I do like the dialogue form for some other reasons.
ReplyDeleteI don't know.. I feel like the communication of emotion is expressed much more readily through a dialogue. Talking about emotion is not nearly as effective as actually showing it and it is easier to show different emotions with multiple people because then you create different personalities.
ReplyDeleteI think that we more readily connect with people and their ideas in text as they pass through experiences that we can connect with. For example; I love the novel A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, typically guys don't like the book for whatever reason it might be, perhaps because the protagonist is a female, and it is more difficult for guys to connect with a female, anyway, the reason I love it is because the protagonist experiences many things that I have experienced, and has many perceptions of the world which are similar to my own. Same with another one of my favorite novels: David Copperfield, I don't necessarily share a lot of personality characteristics with David, but his experience rings to me. I was able to experience De oratore more than I was able to experience De inventione; meaning there was more humanity present for me to empathize with in some way, in stead of a recitation of facts and knowledge.
ReplyDelete