ENGL 570 Discussion Board Forum 4 Cicero and Quintilian *Note: Not all Discussion Boards are identical across courses. Read all instructions in the prompt. General requirements: Every Discussion Board post must be at least600 words minimum. The post needs to include one to two questions for further thought. Each reply must be250 wordsminimum. The reply must attempt to answer the other student’s question(s) and add one additional follow up question for further thought. Discussion Board Forum 4 Prompt: Both Cicero and Quintilian place importance not only on eloquence in rhetoric, but they also stress rhetoric as connected to some form of character. For Cicero, he seeks the “ideal-statesman” whereas Quintilian pursues the “perfect orator.” The different nouns used for each partially indicates a distinguishing feature in their approaches. For this week’s post, address the following: 1) How does Cicero define/understand rhetoric? How does Quintilian define/understand rhetoric? a. Again, using his words here would be too easy, so you must explain his definition inyour own words. This is an excellent practice for graduate level assignments, and it reflects a student’s interpretation of original works. 2) One area Kennedy notes as “missing” in Cicero’s work is the moral responsibility of the orator. Why might this be missing from Cicero’s view of the orator and rhetoric? a. Think about why he can speak on the “ideal” yet not connect that to the use or performance of rhetoric by that person. b. Give examples to support your answer. 3) Why does Quintilian place more emphasis on lifelong education of the orator, and what might this reveal about his view of rhetoric? 4) You must reference specific passage(s) from the assigned reading using APA format. You may quote or summarize, but specific page numbers must be provided. 5) Include one or two questions you have about the assigned readings for this week (Use specific pages numbers as you reference parts of the reading). Review the Discussion Board Grading Rubric before submitting. Your post must be at least 600 words, include 1-2 questions for further thought, and reference the assigned readings using APA format. Your reply to another student’s post must be at least 250 words, attempt to answer the other student’s post, and include one follow up question for further thought. Pragmatism vs. Idealism: The Roman Rhetoricians COLLAPSE Top of Form Roman orators Cicero and Quintilian, though their ideas at times overlapped, posited two different ideals of rhetoric. Cicero, who died years before Quintilian was even born, was the premier orator of Rome at a pivotal moment in Roman history, and thus his understanding of rhetoric was oriented around the state. Like Aristotle, Cicero advanced  a fairly pragmatic definition of rhetoric, emphasizing its persuasive appeal and its stylistic concerns over its ultimate purpose. He did note that rhetoric has the moral capacity for “testing truth,” but his prima.

1. ENGL 570
Discussion Board Forum 4
Cicero and Quintilian
*Note: Not all Discussion Boards are identical across courses.
Read all instructions in the prompt.
General requirements: Every Discussion Board post must be at
least600 words minimum. The post needs to include one to two
questions for further thought.
Each reply must be250 wordsminimum. The reply must attempt
to answer the other student’s question(s) and add one additional
follow up question for further thought.
Discussion Board Forum 4 Prompt:
Both Cicero and Quintilian place importance not only on
eloquence in rhetoric, but they also stress rhetoric as connected
to some form of character. For Cicero, he seeks the “ideal-
statesman” whereas Quintilian pursues the “perfect orator.”
The different nouns used for each partially indicates a
distinguishing feature in their approaches.
For this week’s post, address the following:
1) How does Cicero define/understand rhetoric? How does
Quintilian define/understand rhetoric?
a. Again, using his words here would be too easy, so you must
explain his definition inyour own words. This is an excellent
practice for graduate level assignments, and it reflects a
student’s interpretation of original works.
2) One area Kennedy notes as “missing” in Cicero’s work is the
moral responsibility of the orator. Why might this be missing
from Cicero’s view of the orator and rhetoric?
a. Think about why he can speak on the “ideal” yet not connect
that to the use or performance of rhetoric by that person.
b. Give examples to support your answer.
3) Why does Quintilian place more emphasis on lifelong
education of the orator, and what might this reveal about his
view of rhetoric?

2. 4) You must reference specific passage(s) from the assigned
reading using APA format. You may quote or summarize, but
specific page numbers must be provided.
5) Include one or two questions you have about the assigned
readings for this week (Use specific pages numbers as you
reference parts of the reading).
Review the Discussion Board Grading Rubric before submitting.
Your post must be at least 600 words, include 1-2 questions for
further thought, and reference the assigned readings using APA
format. Your reply to another student’s post must be at least
250 words, attempt to answer the other student’s post, and
include one follow up question for further thought.
Pragmatism vs. Idealism: The Roman Rhetoricians
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Roman orators Cicero and Quintilian, though their ideas at
times overlapped, posited two different ideals of rhetoric.
Cicero, who died years before Quintilian was even born, was the
premier orator of Rome at a pivotal moment in Roman history,
and thus his understanding of rhetoric was oriented around the
state. Like Aristotle, Cicero advanced a fairly pragmatic
definition of rhetoric, emphasizing its persuasive appeal and its
stylistic concerns over its ultimate purpose. He did note that
rhetoric has the moral capacity for “testing truth,” but his
primary concern lay with the qualities of excellent rhetoric, and
thus he did not emphasize the ethical dimension of rhetoric
(trans. 1942, p. 325). In Cicero’s conception, rhetorical
excellence married knowledge to style; the perfect orator was
“he who on any matter whatever can speak with fullness and
variety” (trans. 1942, p. 297). In order to accomplish this goal,
a rhetorician had to be educated in the arts and sciences as well
as in speaking, and this broad education—the forerunner to a
modern liberal arts degree, in a sense—made the rhetorician
eminently versatile. Given the political instability that
overshadowed Cicero’s own career, his emphasis on excellence

3. seems shrewd. If the rhetorician devoted himself to excellence
rather than to a moral or political stance, his talents were an
asset rather than a liability in the event of a regime change.
Cicero may have emphasized excellence rather than morality for
the sake of expedience.
Quintilian, on the other hand, was fundamentally idealistic in
his approach to rhetoric. He famously understood rhetoric as
excellent speaking by good men; indeed, he argued that only
good men could truly be considered orators (trans. 1856, p.
385). Wicked men, he conceded, might borrow the tools of
rhetoric and wield them with skill, but the audience,
recognizing the incongruence of the man’s character and his
words, would ultimately reject him. In order to produce men of
character, Quintilian argued, excellent education was necessary,
and it ought to begin as soon as possible. An excellent educator
would not only pass on the skills Cicero championed but also an
understanding of “what is honorable and good” (Quintilian,
trans. 1856, p. 366). If this moral education began early in a
young man’s life, he would have a sound foundation on which
to build a reputation and a career, and he could continue
growing in goodness throughout his life. Quintilian believed
that, by genuinely embracing virtue, an orator could move
others to do so as well—a worthwhile calling for anyone to
pursue (trans. 1856, p. 420). Only the orator who was both good
and well-spoken could shape culture for the better.
I found a great deal of food for thought in the writings of both
men. For Cicero, my question deals with what he terms
“vigorous language” (trans. 1942, p. 329). He says that such
language is not always wanted; in what situations would he
recommend its usage?
Regarding Quintilian, my question is somewhat more
philosophical. He argues that, since the soul is divine in its
origin, it should not be enslaved by the earthly body (trans.
1856, p. 420). When I read this, I couldn’t help thinking of
Paul’s argument in Romans 6-7 that deals with slavery to sin.
Even though we as Christians ought to regard our bodies

4. respectfully, to what extent can we agree with Quintilian’s
argument here? Does his point here align with truth?
References
Cicero, M. (trans. 1942/2001). De Oratore (E. W. Sutton & H.
Rackham, Trans.). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The
rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the
present (pp. 289-339). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Quintilian, M. (trans. 1856/2001). Institutes of oratory (J. S.
Watson, Trans.). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The
rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the
present (pp. 364-428). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Bottom of Form
Rhetorical Views: A Follow-up On Cicero's View
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Vivian Listner
Eng. 570-BO1
Liberty University
Professor Holt
2/19/20
Rhetorical
Views: A Follow-up on Cicero's View
Cicero knew about the demands it took to be a rhetorician. He
was diverse in his thinking. For example, he fought for justice
in every sense of the word. He viewed it as a way into future
generations’ thinking. His “posterity” (Kennedy, A. George,
1994, p.128) kept him on high ground. He never stopped
believing in the hype. Though he broke chains of “wisdom” so-
to-speak, rhetoric for Cicero was an art form at the very least.
He was defining the terms himself. He would even compose
letters to friends (128). He might have been considered shrewd
or “pompous” (128) but he took matters seriously. His had a
“gift” (129). He used an “extension” (129) of ethos (130) to

5. make rhetorical decisions. As it seems, he ordered “character”
(130) as a means to great knowledge of justice and promise. He
was profoundly viewing rhetoric in terms of what was good, or
what helped the people fight for justice.
The “promise”, was followed by Quintilian on how or what
makes rhetoric useful. Through Quintilian’s book, “Institutes”
he informs/enlightens the reader on two components for further
thought. As in education, we must owe it to ourselves to
understand the power of knowledge. For Quintilian speech was
a form of education. In other words, refining our innate
knowledge. Two, a well-rounded education was vital to the
cause. Without certain aspects of education in its full form,
rhetoric is misunderstood. Also, it must take on a “real-life
application” (Butler, H.E., 2001, pp. 363) hence the form of a
profession. The three offices are: “Indications” (362), which
bring about the “promise” (or future generational promise).
“Style” plays a vital role in any speech given by the “mature
orator” (363) also play a role in a speech. “Art” will be skillful
at best. It is about how to redefine an action through one’s own
gift(s) in a profession. The “necessary orator’s” (363) speech
must profit his/her good sense of being good. His quality of
mind is shaped by the posterity he/she holds.
a. Perhaps moral obligation is a given considering that Cicero
was all about the sense of one’s self being good, and promising.
He was an idealist thinker with so much information. Yet, he
dwelled neatly on the premise of taking rhetoric to the public
through continuous thought on the subject. He also re-
challenged that thinking. For example, he definitively spoke
about the good nature of the public as listeners. Perhaps the
speech “speaks for itself” (mine). In other words, promotes an
obligation within the words of the speech.
Perhaps, a speech is more of a gift. Perhaps Cicero found it
“complex” (132) to begin with. He must’ve known about
obligation through his notions of making core decisions on
truth. He was viewing this subject as a means to profit the
listener, not the orator. In a way, that could be viewed as being

6. moral. He was an alibi. Example:
“Cicero’s defense of Roscius has three parts, combing stasis of
the fact with that form of stasis quality that shifts responsibility
for the action to another person ultimately responsible for guilt”
(130). Another example of Cicero’s goodness: “Who stood to
gain?” (130)
3) Quintilian placed more depth on education because he
must've sensed that the public would gain more from a
knowledgeably wiser person. This prompts my understanding
that his view of rhetoric was about the public, not the orator.
This links up with Cicero’s views on “goodness” and “justice.”
“Fathers have high hopes for their sons for a reason” (363). In
Quintilian’s major works, the “Institutes” he brought about
consensus that education makes a good, prosperous orator.
He/she makes use for the public as listeners.
“Children view it as mimicry” and “should read aloud poets
works…”
These are just a few examples to attach to my case: That he was
looking to make “better, honest people” out of rhetoric.
Questions: How do we know what is good and true on the
listener’s behalf? What makes rhetoric a promise?
References
Cicero, M. “Institutio Oratoria” (trans. Butler. H.E.). In
Bizzell, Patricia, Herzberg, Bruce (2001). The rhetorical
tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. (2nd ed.,
pp. 363). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.Martin's.
Kennedy, George, A., (1994). A New History of Classical
Rhetoric. (pp. 130-132)
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bottom of Form
ENGL 570
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
Criteria

7. Levels of Achievement
Content 70%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Points Earned
Development
26 to 28 points
Major points are stated clearly and are well-supported. Ideas not
only answer prompt but expands it further.
The post includes considerations of previous writers and/or
ideas. Other writers’ views and ideas are specifically mentioned
to provide clarity.
Writer presents critical questions for consideration about the
reading and/or its connections to other contexts.
The thread meets and exceeds the 600-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
24 to 25 points
Major points are answered but may need additional support or
clarity to establish clear connections. Ideas answer the prompt
but do not expand the discussion further.
Other writers are vaguely mentioned, but they are not addressed
specifically.
Writer presents questions for consideration, but they might need
more refinement for further discussion.
The thread meets the 400-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
1 to 23 points
Major points may be answered yet lack any support for clarity.
Ideas minimally address parts of the prompt and might miss
some areas.
Other writers are not mentioned. The content of the post is
isolated and not contextualized with other readings.
Writer presents questions that are already answered by the text,
do not prompt further inquiry, or do not connect to the reading

8. itself.
The word count requirement is not met.
At least one requirement must be met.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Scope
9 to 10 points
The content is specific and manageable, focused on the
prompted questions yet accompanied with in-depth support.
6 to 8 points
The content is specific in some areas but might leave some
areas broader and in need of further support.
1 to 5 points
The content is too broad, often trying to cover the entirety of a
work and not going in-depth with any one topic or theme.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Reply
16 to 18 points
The reply answers the original post’s questions written by
another student.
The reply reveals an understanding of the original posts’ focus
and context of the question.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s
inquiry.
The reply meets and exceeds the 250-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
11 to 15 points
The reply answers the original post’s questions written by
another student yet it might need some further clarity added.
The reply reveals general knowledge of the original post but
only summarizes those ideas without connecting them to another
question.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s

9. inquiry, but the question needs further refinement.
The reply meets the 250-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
1 to 10 points
The reply does not attempt to answer the original post’s
question presented by another student.
The reply minimally connects to the original post’s content.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s
inquiry, but the question is not asking anything new or more
focused.
The minimum word count is not met.
At least one requirement must be met.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Structure 30%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Points Earned
Organization
7 to 8 points
Structure presents clear and coherent ideas.
While not necessarily presenting individual paragraphs, content
has unified parts with clear focus.
Transitional wording/phrasing indicates shifts in focus and
logical connections between ideas.
4 to 6 points
Structure reflects the prompted questions but may not blend
together as one post/focus.
Content is generally focused and unified. Some redundancy
present, which hinders the flow of ideas.

10. Basic transitions present.
1 to 3 points
Structure not clear or present. No clear order of ideas.
Content may address prompt but does not reveal interconnecting
ideas blending together for a single focus.
Limited to no attempts at transitioning.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Grammar and Mechanics
7 to 8 points
The writing reflects
grammatical,
punctuation, and
spelling standards.
Language is accurate,
appropriate, effective, and reflects graduate level diction.
The tone is appropriate
and highly effective.
4 to 6 points
The writing contains
some grammatical,
punctuation, and / or spelling errors.
Language is unclear,
awkward or
inappropriate in parts.
Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.
1 to 3 points
The writing contains
many grammatical,
punctuation and/or

11. spelling errors.
Language use is
largely inaccurate or inappropriate.
The tone is
ineffective and/or inappropriate.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
APA Formatting
7 to 8 points
The writing contains
some grammatical,
punctuation, and / or spelling errors.
Language is unclear,
awkward or
inappropriate in parts.
Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.
4 to 6 points
Writing follows most formatting guidelines, but some flaws are
detected.
Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations are
incorrectly formatted or used
1 to 3 points
Writing lacks many elements of correct formatting.
Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations and / or
references are not provided.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Total
/50
Instructor's Comments:

12. Page 2 of 4