Ridicule or Modesty: Modes of argumentation

I found, as Macey R did, that there were many similarities between Aristotle’s Gorgias and Cicero’s De Oratore. The Kairos of the speeches were very similar in their casual, friendly conversation. I found the styles to be similar, as well as their arrangements and persuasive techniques, although I found Cicero’s dialogue to be more civil and humble. I’ll start with an explanation of the similarities.

I just felt like this guy reminded
me of Antonius; "Your turn, Crassus!
You've got this!"

In both works, an intro is compiled, and then a reflective dialogue is given. Both of the main speakers are writing as they think back to how the situation was at the time. Each of these works uses definition, questions to form their ideas and insight comprehension in their audience. The authors of both make a striking appeal for their side, by arguing that their art is the greatest of all the arts. In this, they both make passionate arguments backed up by reason and examples. They pose similar questions, including thoughts such as ‘can this art be taught?’ and ‘how does one gain this skill?’ It seems as if the arguments and questions, as well as how the arguments are brought up and discussed is very similarly categorized.

The reason that I view De Oratore to be more civil and humble is because of the actions and words of Cicero. While in Aristotle’s Gorgias the questions posed are used to belittle and contradict and make the audience (or others arguing) fumble in their argument, Antonius uses the intellect of others, and relies on multiple witnesses to argue his point. At one point, he even says (after a compliment) “I am describing my own meager achievements.” This is the tone that he holds the entire work. Later, he passes the argument to one who he views to be more eloquent and knowledgeable on the topics discussed. While Gorgias argues with multiple people and uses his intellect and pompous nature to bring shame and ridicule to his competitors, Antonius stays calm and builds his argument on knowledge and ethos, as he discusses is important to oratory.