This is a review of "De Oratore" books I-II and "De Oratore" book III in the Loeb Classical Library.

Marcus Tullius Cicero may not have been the greatest trial lawyer of ancient Rome, but he is the best remembered. He wrote much on many subjects, and some of his private correspondence also survives. He did his best writing in the field of rhetoric. Although he was not an original thinker on the subject of rhetoric, "De Oratore" shows him to have had an encyclopedic practical knowledge of oratory in general and criminal trial advocacy in particular.

Cicero wrote "De Oratore" as a dialog among some of the preeminent orators of the era immediately preceding Cicero's time. The occasion is a holiday at a country villa, and the characters discuss all facets of oratory, ceremonial, judicial, and deliberative. They devote most of the discussion to judicial oratory, and their discussion reveals the trial of a Roman lawsuit to be somewhat analogous to the trial of a modern lawsuit. You have to piece it together from stray references to procedure scattered throughout the work, but it appears that a Roman trial consisted of opening statements, the taking of evidence, and final arguments. Modern trial advocacy manuals devote most of their attention to the taking of evidence, but Cicero dismisses the mechanics of presenting evidence as relatively unimportant compared to the mechanics of presenting argument.

"De Oratore" is divided into three books. The first speaks of the qualities of the orator; the second of judicial oratory, and the third of ceremonial and deliberative oratory. The modern trial lawyer would find the second book most interesting and most enlightening. A lot about trial advocacy has changed since Cicero's day (e.g. no more testimony taken under torture), but a lot hasn't.. Much of what Cicero says holds true even in the modern courtroom.

Trial lawyers cannot congregate without swapping "war stories," and Cicero's characters are no exception. They pepper their discussion with references to courtroom incidents which have such verisimilitude that they could have happened last week instead of 2,000 years ago. I have no doubt that Cicero, had he lived today, would have made a formidable trial lawyer.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of "De Oratore" consists of two volumes. Volume one contains Books I and II of "De Oratore," and volume two contains Book III along with two shorter philosphical works and "De Partitione Oratoria." "De Partitione" purports to be a discussion between Cicero and his son on oratory. "De Partitione" differs so much from "De Oratore," that many (myself included) doubt Cicero wrote it.

When I was in law school at the University of Florida back in the 70's, our student bar association raised money by selling "looms" on the law courses. Looms were the typed up notes of the students who made the highest grades in each of the classes. Looms were clear, concise statements of the essentials of a course without all the extraneous verbiage that creeps into didactic presentation.

"Rhetorica ad Herennium" reads like a loom. It states its points in clear, concise language without elaboration. The points are well made and highly relevant to the subject of persuasive oratory.

You might well describe "Rhetorica" as an ancient handbook on the subject of arguing a criminal case to a jury. At some trial advocacy school I attended sometime during my career as a lawyer, I learned a basic outline for delivering a final argument. You can imagine my amusement when I learned that this basic outline came from a 2,000 year old book. That isn't the only part of the book applicable to the modern courtroom.

The ancient rhetorician was to be skilled in five areas: 1. Invention: Deciding what to say. 2. Arrangment: Deciding what order to say it in. 3. Style: Saying it well. 4. Memory: Remembering what to say. 5. Delivery: The nonverbals that accompany speech.

"Rhetorica" consists of four books arranged as follows:

Books I & II cover Invention, especially as it relates to Judicial or Forensic Rhetoric, giving an analysis as timely as an article from last week's law journal. Although the technology of rhetoric has changed markedly since the days of Cicero, the general principles of rhetoric haven't changed much at all.

Book III takes up Ceremonial and Deliberative Rhetoric and also deals with Arrangement, Delivery, and Memory.

Book IV, which proves the most tedious, deals with Style.

I think this is one of the best books on public speaking I have ever read. It is clear and concise. The author lays out what you are to know and do very well. I would recommend Ad Herennium to anyone. I am really glad my 10th grade Rhetoric teacher made me read this!!!

This is a great book! I have been using it all semester in my 300-level Latin course, and I cannot emphasize enough how helpful I have found it. Austin's is considered the preeminent commentary on the Pro Caelio among the faculty at my school, and I would venture to guess that the same applies just about anywhere else. The Pro Caelio is a speech which was delivered by the famed Roman orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in defense of Marcus Caelius, a personal friend accused of attempted murder. This text is not a translation and is not intended for reading by those without a grounding in the fundamentals of Latin grammar and syntax. In this edition of the Pro Caelio, the author provides alternate readings of the Latin text in footnotes at the bottom of each page. (Disparities between the medieval codices by which this work was passed down to us are common). He assigns each codex a Greek letter at the beginning of the book which serves to identify, in abbreviated form, the text which the alternate reading is ascribed to. This makes finding alternate readings -- and thus starting arguments over the meaning of a passage -- quite easy. Also provided, in endnotes which follow an unbroken presentation of the Latin text, are Austin's personal commentaries on certain passages. These range from very short to sometimes two pages in length, depending on the passage's importance and perceived difficulty. These notes provide a glimpse into the history behind the dramatic trial. I would recommend this book to any Classics scholar, beginning or advanced. For once, one of my course books will find a permanent home on my bookshelf instead of at the used bookstore after finals week!

This book is the culmination of years of dedicated Oxford scholarship which has resulted in a masterful commentary on Cicero's Pro Caelio. I just started using this text in my advanced Latin class, and have found it far superior to even the exceptional Ciraolo text I used previously. The print is small, and the glosses and comments are placed in endnotes instead of footnotes, which makes the whole thing rather cumbersome. But oh, what marvelous information is to be found in those notes! Austin cites every major authority (up to 1959) on even the minutest of details and pits conflicting theories against each other, and then adds his own frequently curt pronouncements on the subject -- but always leaves the reader to make up his own mind. He makes certain to note where the various medieval codices diverge, even if there is only a scintilla of difference in the phrasings of a passage. This again shows his dedication to scholarship and letting the reader make up his own mind. This is THE definitive commentary on the Pro Caelio, for this is the place where you will find all the great Classicists of the ages gathered for one great symposium; it is the gateway to all the more specialized scholarship and a great general overview of them all.

This book truly shows the art of a great speaker and orator. Cicero is the best!. "On government" truly develops the mind. (The book is also handy if you want to expand your vocabulary.)

Cicero is the greatest of latin writers. His knowledge is so wide. This book brings together many of his thoughts on government.This book makes it obvious how much he loved the republican form of government. Our founding fathers were widely read on Cicero's treatise's and rightly so. Excellent reading.

If you are interested in the classical world, you should read Ciceronis epistulae in Latine. And do not read them in English-translation. Not to choose an easier way.

This is considered by many to be Cicero's magnum-opus of his career. Whether it is or not is a topic of debate. What is outside the jurisdiction of debate is that it is a landmark work in the history of oratory.

In it Cicero details the various oratorical techniques which should be employed by the master of elocution. Such topics as eloquence, delivery, word choice and accessability of diction are discussed. Each view and counterview is presented by a different interlocutor, in the Platonic tradition. We even have none other than Julius Caesar lecturing on what Nietzsche would call the "uses and disadvantages" of invoking humor during serious orations. One of the primary issues which comes under consideration is the level of erudition of the orator. Should the individual be well versed in sundry fields of intellectual endeavor (such as the philosopher, perhaps?)? Does the ability to invoke virtually any academic pursuit aid in getting one's point across? Or, does this only lead to a person with an overly and unnecessary pedantic approach to oratory - one which stocklists various irrelevant points to the topic at hand? If so, is it better for the speechmaker to be less well rounded in his studies, and instead focused solely on the subject matter of his parlance? Cicero takes the question up at great lengths.

Within the dialogue myriad allusions are made to such household names as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Isocrates, Democritus, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Cato the elder, Anaxagoras, Valerius and Scipio Africanus, as well as a multitude of less well known names which would be recognized only by the most learned classical scholars. A general knowledge of Greaco-Roman history up until the time of Cicero is highly recommended before engaging this text.

The second part of the book is entitled "Brutus; or Remarks on Eminent Orators." This is supposedly taken from a conversation which Cicero actually had with Brutus and a few other mutual friends, in Cicero's own words "in a private lawn, near a statue of Plato" (p. 268). In it Cicero extols the great Roman orators of the past and (as in "Orators") extends his criticism against the sophists. He also pays homage to his own teacher: Molo of Rhodes. One comes away with nothing less than an awe of Cicero's vast knowledge of the history of elocution.

This book is a must read for philosophers, scholars of antiquity, lawyers, politicians and all others who own the task of swaying the opinion(s) of the masses. Oh, and by the way, it's a pretty good read for those who aren't interested in any of that stuff, too. 8-)

The five "books" (just one in our sense of the word "book") "Tusculan Disputations" of Cicero are dedicated to existential questions like "Is dead something evil?" oder "Do wise men have emotional perturbations?" The answer of the first question cited here is crucial for emotional states, for instance fear of death. In this way this first question is subordinate to the second. M. Graver picked therefore Book 3 and 4, which are concerning with grief and emotion in general, as central parts of Ciceros work and translated them carefully into English, with useful subdivisions and an excellent commentary. Of extraordinary value is the introduction, which enables the reader to get insight into the discussions of the various schools of philosophers, and most surprising is the collection of material in Appendix A to D, which shows part of the sources (we dont have all sources at hand), which Cicero used for his - in general - independent work. You can recommend this edition especially to students who are concerned either in ancient philosophy or in historical studies of psychology.

Doc May is currently my professor at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. He is one of the most brilliant men that I have ever met. We got to read his book before it was published for a literature class. It is a very good translation. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

This volume (#268) in the Loeb Classical Library
editions of Greek and Latin works -- contains two
major philosophical works by Cicero {Marcus Tullius
Cicero -- sometimes referred to as "Tully" by later
writers of the 17th and 18th centuries). The two
works are: -De Natura Deorum-, and, -Academica-.
There are, in his life and in his writings, two
different Ciceros, according to the implications in
Cicero's writings. There was the public man Cicero--
the lawyer in the courts (whether prosecuting or
defense), the Consul, the politcal activist, the
manipulator and manipulated man. Then there was
the retiree from public life, the father cast into
sorrow by the grief over the loss of his daughter,
the man seeking consolation and engagement with
philosophy. It is the second of these two men
who is the author and thinker in these two works.
Both works are cast as dialogues...discourses,
or gentlemanly "arguments" about the schools of
philosophy and the approaches of philosophical
thought which were available in Cicero's time.
They mainly concern what had happened to philo-
sophical thought after the death of Plato, and
the fate of his school (the Academy) and its
teachings were passed down to various "stewards"
of thought. Each of the succeeding masters of
the school took a different approach toward
philosophical investigation and interest, depending
on how they interpreted Plato's emphases. One
group decided that it was impossible to be positive
about any knowledge concerning the external world;
another group decided that while a certain healthy
skepticism should be held concerning sense impressions
and the rational deductions which could be based on
them, still there was plenty of room for rational,
productive insight to be developed.
Cicero begins -De Natura Deorum- with a Preface
which is addressed to his friend Brutus. In this
"Preface," Cicero says that the various philosophical
groups have argued over the nature of the gods. He
says that it is important to try to discover which
might be the true view, since if the gods "have
neither the power nor the will to aid us" [he
never presents the option that there are no gods
at all], then that will lead to one way of looking
at the gods and will have certain repercussions on
thought and social life and the life of the country,
but if there is another side, and the gods do, in
fact, concern themselves in men's affairs and
perhaps even intervene or let their wills be
known, then that should lead to a different
response on the part of man. For, as Cicero
says, "Piety however, like the rest of the virtues,
cannot exist in mere outward show and pretence;
and [without] piety, reverence and religion must
likewise disappear. And when these are gone,
life soon becomes a welter of disorder and confusion;
and in all probability the disappearance of piety
towards the gods will entail the diappearance of

loyalty and social union among men as well, and
of justice itself, th queen of all the virtues."
Those are important ideas to consider, especially
in these, our own times. Cicero says that there
are two main reasons why he has turned to philos-
ophy: he thought to expound philosophy to his
fellow-countrymen as a duty in the interests of
the commonwealth since it would greatly contribute
to the honour and glory of the state to have
thoughts so important and so lofty enshrined in

Latin literature (rather than only Greek); and,
secondly, he has taken to the writing of philosophy
because of the dejection of spirit occasioned by
the heavy and crushing blow from the death of his
daughter, Tullia (45 B.C.).
In Book I of -De Natura Deorum-, the theology
of the philosopher Epicurus is expounded by
Velleius, who attacks the theology and cosmology
of Plato and the Stoics, and refutes the theology
of the other schools from Thales downward [this
is from the relation by H. Rackham in his "Intro-
duction" to the work]. "He is answered by the
Academic Cotta, who demolishes the Epicurean
theology, and pronounces Epicureanism to be
really fatal to religion."
In Book II, the Stoic theology is set out by
Balbus. Cotta again replies, in Book III,
giving the Academic criticism of the Stoic
theology in the same four areas covered by
Balbus. In the actual "debate," Cicero is
a somewhat silent observer, but at the end
he notes the impression of the debate on his
own mind.
In -Academica-, there is another dialogue, or
debate. There were two different versions of
this work written by Cicero; and we have parts
of both, but not the complete version of either
the first or second edition (and Cicero made
some changes between the two versions). So
we have a work which is a part of one edition,
some fragments, and a part of the other edition
put together to form a "whole." Again, the
debate is over the approaches of philosophers
outside the Academy, and the various groups
which inherited and put their own stamp on
the Academic thought -- the Old Academy and
the New Academy. This work is dedicated and
has as one of its interlocutors the great Roman
scholar and librarian, Marcus Terentius Varro.
Varro says that he has written nothing in philosophy
because he thinks that Romans will either
read the Greek, rather than any Latin
version or imitation, or they won't be interested
in philosophy at all, and so won't read anything,
Greek or Latin. Cicero, disagrees with Varro.
He says that Romans, even those who can read
Greek works of philosophy, would also be interested
in Latin works as well. And he says that works of
philosophy in Latin might be of value for those
who would have no interest in the Greek ones.
In these two excellent translations into
English by H. Rackham, the English reader will
also find interest, pleasure, and insight in
involvement with Cicero's presentation of these
arguments and refutations of the various philo-
sophical approaches to ideas, values, virtues,
divinities, and schools of thought.

Marcus Tullius Cicero may not have been the greatest trial lawyer of ancient Rome, but he is the best remembered. He wrote much on many subjects, and some of his private correspondence also survives. He did his best writing in the field of rhetoric. Although he was not an original thinker on the subject of rhetoric, "De Oratore" shows him to have had an encyclopedic practical knowledge of oratory in general and criminal trial advocacy in particular.

Cicero wrote "De Oratore" as a dialog among some of the preeminent orators of the era immediately preceding Cicero's time. The occasion is a holiday at a country villa, and the characters discuss all facets of oratory, ceremonial, judicial, and deliberative. They devote most of the discussion to judicial oratory, and their discussion reveals the trial of a Roman lawsuit to be somewhat analogous to the trial of a modern lawsuit. You have to piece it together from stray references to procedure scattered throughout the work, but it appears that a Roman trial consisted of opening statements, the taking of evidence, and final arguments. Modern trial advocacy manuals devote most of their attention to the taking of evidence, but Cicero dismisses the mechanics of presenting evidence as relatively unimportant compared to the mechanics of presenting argument.

"De Oratore" is divided into three books. The first speaks of the qualities of the orator; the second of judicial oratory, and the third of ceremonial and deliberative oratory. The modern trial lawyer would find the second book most interesting and most enlightening. A lot about trial advocacy has changed since Cicero's day (e.g. no more testimony taken under torture), but a lot hasn't.. Much of what Cicero says holds true even in the modern courtroom.

Trial lawyers cannot congregate without swapping "war stories," and Cicero's characters are no exception. They pepper their discussion with references to courtroom incidents which have such verisimilitude that they could have happened last week instead of 2,000 years ago. I have no doubt that Cicero, had he lived today, would have made a formidable trial lawyer.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of "De Oratore" consists of two volumes. Volume one contains Books I and II of "De Oratore," and volume two contains Book III along with two shorter philosphical works and "De Partitione Oratoria." "De Partitione" purports to be a discussion between Cicero and his son on oratory. "De Partitione" differs so much from "De Oratore," that many (myself included) doubt Cicero wrote it.

Cicero is revealed as him self in this book, which gives great detail about his life and his bielefs. This book is a great read with lots of information about Cicero.