Cover of Ethics and the Orator
Ethics and the Orator The Ciceronian Tradition of Political Morality
by Gary A. Remer
University of Chicago Press, 2017
Cloth: 978-0-226-43916-7 | Electronic: 978-0-226-43933-4
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.001.0001

AVAILABLE FROM

University of Chicago Press (cloth, ebook)
DeGruyter Multi-User Ebook Program
EBSCO eBooks (formerly NetLibrary)
University Press Scholarship Online (UPSO)
ABOUT THIS BOOKAUTHOR BIOGRAPHYREVIEWSTABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS BOOK

For thousands of years, critics have attacked rhetoric and the actual practice of politics as unprincipled, insincere, and manipulative. In Ethics and the Orator, Gary A. Remer disagrees, offering the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition as a rejoinder. He argues that the Ciceronian tradition is based on practical or “rhetorical” politics, rather than on idealistic visions of a politics-that-never-was—a response that is ethically sound, if not altogether morally pure.

Remer’s study is distinct from other works on political morality in that it turns to Cicero, not Aristotle, as the progenitor of an ethical rhetorical perspective. Contrary to many, if not most, studies of Cicero since the mid-nineteenth century, which have either attacked him as morally indifferent or have only taken his persuasive ends seriously (setting his moral concerns to the side), Ethics and the Orator demonstrates how Cicero presents his ideal orator as exemplary not only in his ability to persuade, but in his capacity as an ethical person. Remer makes a compelling case that Ciceronian values—balancing the moral and the useful, prudential reasoning, and decorum—are not particular only to the philosopher himself, but are distinctive of a broader Ciceronian rhetorical tradition that runs through the history of Western political thought post-Cicero, including the writings of Quintilian, John of Salisbury, Justus Lipsius, Edmund Burke, the authors of The Federalist, and John Stuart Mill.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Gary A. Remer is associate professor of political science at Tulane University. He is the author of Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration and coeditor of Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy.

REVIEWS

“Speech is central to political life, but it isn’t central to the contemporary study of politics. That wasn’t true in the ancient world, where writers like Aristotle and Cicero produced treatises on rhetoric. In this major scholarly work, Remer describes the tradition they began, where rhetoric wasn’t primarily about how to speak but rather about what to say (or not say). This is rhetoric as political morality. Moving from Cicero forward, Remer vividly describes a way of thinking about prudence and decorum in the pursuit of political goals that seems especially valuable today when these virtues are so radically absent.”
— Michael Walzer, professor (emeritus) of social science, Institute for Advanced Study

“In this fascinating and historically expansive discussion, Remer demonstrates not only Cicero’s enduring importance, but also his relevance to our own thinking about rhetoric and politics. As a response to our own rhetorical age that paradoxically distrusts rhetoric, Remer shows how Cicero embeds practical morality in rhetoric, providing timely insights into our current debates about democracy.”
— Dean Hammer, author of Roman Political Thought: From Cicero to Augustine

“Is the art of persuasion inherently immoral? Can a person who speaks well be counted on to use that skill in an ethical manner? These are questions that have animated debate among political and moral thinkers from Greco-Roman antiquity up to the present day. Working through the lens of the great Roman politician, rhetorician, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, Remer directly responds to these quandaries in a book of exceptional vision and profundity. Remer both makes a substantial contribution to the study of the history of Western political thought and offers a highly relevant reflection on the situation in which modern democracies find themselves at this moment in time.”
— Cary J. Nederman, Texas A&M University

“Few groups are as widely distrusted in democratic societies as politicians. Even as this is the case, political theorists and philosophers have sought to show that political morality is not a contradiction in terms. In this timely, original, and well-argued book, Remer turns to Cicero—and the Ciceronian tradition —to show how the Roman orator-philosopher’s understanding of the interrelationship between rhetoric and morality can inform contemporary discussions of political morality. Few scholars are as well-suited to the task as Remer, and he pulls it off superbly. Engaging an impressive range of rhetoric, philosophy, classics, and political theory scholarship, Remer convincingly shows that Cicero’s defense of rhetoric’s intrinsic morality can help to resolve our own worries about rhetoric and politics.”
— Daniel J. Kapust, University of Wisconsin-Madison

“Gary Remer’s very fine new book could not be more familiar or more central to contemporary politics. . .Remer’s  analysis is subtle and thoughtful.”
— Perspectives on Politics

“Remer rarely loses sight of the potential contemporary value of his historical material, and herein lies his most significant contribution. Ethics and the Orator succeeds admirably in showing how the study of Cicero’s political thought, which charts a path between an unrealistic moral idealism and an amoral world where politics is unleavened by morality, can still be relevant for modern debates in political philosophy, during a time marked by cynicism about politics and politicians. It deserves to be read widely by classicists, historians of political thought, and political theorists working on issues related to rhetoric, political deliberation, and political morality.”
— Political Theory

“Ethics and the Orator is clear, well written, and erudite. As impressive as Remer’s command of the texts and literature on Cicero is, he is never a pedant. Moreover, he uses his Cicero to address questions of continuing saliency. Most of all his account well illustrates ways in which Cicero was perhaps the classical political thinker most concerned with the transcendence of the common good.”
— The Review of Politics

"Remer’s book is highly recommended not just to those who want to know more about Cicero’s influence on a range of significant political theorists...but also to those who seek an introduction to some significant and difficult to grapple with early modern works on how emotion can be used and misused to manipulate us by and through our politicians."
— Siobhán McElduff, Polis

TABLE OF CONTENTS


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0001
[Cicero;Quintilian;John of Salisbury;political morality;rhetoric]
Although the longevity and robustness of the Ciceronian tradition of political morality cannot demonstrated in this single book alone, the Prologue will offer support for the tradition’s endurance and vigor by turning to the thought of Quintilian and John of Salisbury, who were profoundly influenced by Cicero. The Prologue indicates Quintilian's and John of Salisbury's association with the Ciceronian tradition by pointing up their espousal of some of the key elements identified earlier with the tradition. Quintilian and John were intentionally chosen because they lived in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Cicero’s influence is frequently expected to be weaker (or less genuinely Ciceronian) before the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These pre-Renaissance Ciceronians suggest that the tradition of Ciceronian political morality also persists from Cicero’s own time through the Renaissance. Quintilian will, perforce, be discussed in greater detail than John of Salisbury, as Cicero’s imprint on him is the more apparent. John’s adoption of elements of Ciceronian political morality, however, will also be adumbrated.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0002
[Cicero;Aristotle;rhetoric;political morality;emotional manipulation;emotions;decorum]
Although it is widely accepted that Aristotle forges a better relationship among rhetoric, the emotions, and political morality than Cicero, this chapter contends that Cicero, not Aristotle, offers a more relevant account of the relationship among these terms. It is argued in this chapter that, by grounding his account of emotional appeals in the art of rhetoric, Aristotle does not evade the moral problems originating in emotional manipulation. Moreover, Aristotle’s approach to emotional appeals in politics is static, unable to adapt to new political circumstances when compared to Cicero’s approach. It is suggested that Cicero’s approach to the rhetorical emotions is more acceptable to a modern audience than Aristotle’s because it is ethically based while also responsive to political realities. Cicero accommodates emotional appeals to circumstance based on his belief in decorum as a moral principle. Further, it is shown in this chapter that emotional manipulation in Cicero is not as problematical as it initially appears.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0003
[Cicero;political morality;decorum;dirty hands;Michael Walzer;personae theory;senatus consultum ultimum]
Politicians commit actions that sometimes violate ordinary moral standards, which they deem as necessary for the public interest. Michael Walzer refers to this situation of political actors doing the right thing in utilitarian terms but committing a moral wrong as the dilemma of dirty hands. This chapter discusses the issue of dirty hands. The chapter shows that Cicero eschews the fantasy of a morally pure politics for the reality of a politics that is moral yet tempered by political realities. By proposing a politically pragmatic morality rather than a philosophically untainted one, Cicero begins to reverse the process begun in antiquity in which the unity of eloquence and philosophy, politics and morality were split between politics and eloquence “unaccompanied by any consideration of moral duty,” on the one hand, and philosophy and wisdom “prosecuted vigorously in quiet seclusion by the men of highest virtue,” on the other. How Cicero seeks to effect a conceptual reconciliation between the practical and the moral is a fundamental question of this chapter.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0004
[Cicero;Niccolò Machiavelli;decorum;honestum;utile;glory;Victoria Kahn]
Despite their similarities, Cicero and Machiavelli differ from each other in that Cicero, in contrast to Machiavelli, openly affirms that politics is incomplete without a dual commitment to the good (honestum) and the beneficial (utile). This chapter examines Machiavelli’s focus on the useful and public as opposed to Cicero’s additional commitment to the honorable and to the private. It contrasts the pursuit of glory in Machiavelli, which was preoccupied with appearances and the search for immortality, with Cicero's ambivalent attitude toward glory. This chapter also discusses Cicero's "decorum," which is not only a matter of expediency but also a moral duty.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0005
[Cicero;Lipsius;Tacitus;mixed prudence;dirty hands;rhetoric;decorum;prudence;Renaissance political thought;Tacitism]
This chapter argues that Cicero, not Tacitus, is the primary and consistent source of Lipsius's political morality, specifically his belief that the ruler is morally justified, when political necessity demands, in dissimulating and deceiving. Lipsius bases his political morality, which he terms "mixed prudence," on Cicero's rhetorical perspective. From his earliest political writings to the Politica, Lipsius adopts prudence as his political touchstone, whose meaning he derives from Cicero's "decorum." The standard of political morality, for Lipsius as for his intellectual forebear Cicero, must, like the orator's speech, be contextually determined. Therefore, under some circumstances, as when the welfare of the state is at stake, Lipsius sanctions the prudent use of conventionally immoral practices.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0006
[Cicero;representation;political representation;orator;Edmund Burke;The Federalist;Publius;James Madison;Alexander Hamilton;John Stuart Mill]
Contemporary scholars largely agree that political representation is a modern phenomenon. It is argued in this chapter, however, that Cicero envisions his ideal orator-statesman as a representative of the Roman people. First, Cicero uses terms, including procurator, auctor, tutor, dispensator, and vilicus, to describe the ideal orator-statesman, particularly in De oratore and in De republica, in ways that suggest representation. Second, Cicero illustrates characteristics of the orator that are analogous to many of the primary characteristics associated with the modern representative. Cicero’s anticipation of modern representation can be seen by delineating this conception through the writings of theorists ofpolitical representation, such as Edmund Burke, the authors of the Federalist Papers, and John Stuart Mill.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0007
[Cicero;deliberative democracy;conversation;sermo;deliberative oratory;deliberation;unattainable ideals;attainable ideals]
Unlike proponents of deliberative democracy, Cicero, like other classical rhetoricians, identifies deliberative oratory, not conversation, as the dominant genre of political speech. Cicero, however, also identifies conversation (sermo) as another kind of rhetoric that was not much discussed by other ancient rhetoricians. His conception of conversation anticipates the ideal of conversation upheld by today’s advocates of deliberative democracy. By comparing both Ciceronian oratory and conversation with deliberative democratic discourse, this chapter explains why Cicero chooses political oratory over conversation as the primary mode of political communication. And in analyzing Cicero’s rationale for selecting oratory over conversation, this chapter shows the relevance of his arguments to contemporary politics. Later in this chapter, the argument is presented that Cicero’s choice of deliberative oratory over deliberation qua conversation better reflects the reality of politics, not only in his time but in our own, and that deliberative democracy’s moral requirements do not sufficiently take into account the actual practice of politics. Ideals are morally useful. The deliberative democrats’ ideal of a deliberative society, however, is sufficiently out-of-touch with politics as practiced (or even possible) that it undermines the value of their deliberative ideal.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226439334.003.0008
[Cicero;political morality;intellectual tradition;Abraham Lincoln]
The present-day relevance of the Ciceronian tradition of political morality appears uncertain once we appreciate that one of the hallmarks of an intellectual tradition is the presence of an ongoing virtual conversation between members of the tradition—especially a dialogue between members of the tradition and its founder. But how can we speak of the continuing relevance of the Ciceronian tradition when Cicero, the founder of the tradition, is largely unknown today? The Conclusion maintains that if we focus more on the wide-ranging acceptance of key elements of the Ciceronian tradition of political morality than on the pervasive ignorance of the tradition’s provenance, the tradition is alive and well.
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

Book published by University of Chicago Press, 2017. Page maintained by BiblioVault.