Both Cicero and Quintilian express a strong appreciation for and emphasis on “vir bonus” or the conept of a “good man.” In the rhetoric of Ancient Greece there was a large debate over who had access to rhetoric and the means through which they gained that access–the sophists versus the people of the aristocracy. In Rome, this debate is the large debate occurring at the time. Romans were concerned with the ethical and moral actions of its leaders because they saw a higher importance than that of the Greeks. In Greece, the concern was characterized by the social change occurring between the aristocracy and the middle-class (facilitated by the sophists). But now, that type of social change has already occurred and the Romans feel it necessary to clearly define what a “good man” is, so that moral and social norms can emerge and prevent a major culture change from occurring. In addition to this, the Romans held much more power politically and militarily than that of the Ancient Greeks. With this comes the responsibility and duty to uphold all standards and achieve the most highest levels of morality. This was crucial in moving forward as the top-tier empire that Rome wanted to become.
I like the comparison of how each ancient society viewed rhetoric and the emphasis they placed on it within society. I especially liked how you talked about the responsibilities that Rome had that Athens did not, this put into context the way Romans viewed rhetoric.
You have a good grasp of what the main debate is at the time. You did a good job of relating what was going on in Rome and in Greece at this time. You could go a little bit more in depth with what you learned from the excepts of Cicero and Quintilian. There was a lot of good information in there that would really help your connections.
I agree that now the Romans are trying to define what a “good man” is. Cicero’s says on page 398 that a speech should be with what is honorable. So the a rhetor needs to have honor to be considered a good man. Quintilian believed that a people are good or bad but the ideal orator must be good. Would that mean for a rhetor’s speech that he needs to be honorable when speaking and to say that it is good making the person good under Quintilian’s claim?
Great question, Emily! Nice engagement here with Cole!