Two Writers and an Age Difference of 2000 Years

For Dutch version click here.

Been on my to-do-to-do list for years, and finally got to it: I have read the book The Ideal Orator, written by M. Tullius Cicero and published in 55 BC. known to most people by his nickname Cicero alone (see for an explanation of Roman names). It is still regarded as one of the standard works on public speaking, even though the book is over 2000 years old. Recently I also read another book and I noticed some of similarities. Would so little have changed over the centuries?

About the book, Cicero himself and his writing style

In his time Cicero was considered an unsurpassed orator (public speaker). He held several public offices (magistrates) and was a member of the Senate where he spoke often. He also defended individuals before the court in Rome. He wrote this book to publicize his views on what the ideal orator is, what he can do, and how to achieve it (women were fully barred from public office). Given his reputation and accomplishments, he knew what he was talking about.

Cicero wrote the book in three parts and lets other men speak for him. He depicts a (fictional) conversation that allegedly took place in 91 B.C. between some very prominent speakers of their day and a pair of younger men eager to learn more about public speaking. The translators have added an extensive introduction to explain Roman society and placed explanations and marginal notes in the text to clarify certain statements and other details. Not everything can be translated well, or needs some extra (background) information.o

Cicero has a fairly complicated writing style that differs considerably from the texts we are used to in our current time. He writes (in my opinion) very plainly, with many subordinate clauses and a lot of text. His sentences (from capital letter to endpoint) are therefore very long and that makes reading difficult (see the quotes below for an image, these are two sentences!). It is not a book that you can easily pick up and read in a relaxed manner. Incidentally, the second part of the book contains less of this: it was the best read for me, partly because he discusses the subject of humor in it and mentions many examples. Those examples are still humorous today.

Parallel Drawing with Current Insights

A few days before I started on Cicero, I read the book Manipuleren kun je leren (You can learn how to manipulate) by Frank van Marwijk. This sounds very negative, Van Marwijk gives a number of examples that show that manipulation is not only applied by horrible people and psychopaths. I already saw some references to the concept of mirroring/mimicing (which I think I have read about in the books by Berthold Gunster), a term that Van Marwijk also mentions later in the book. On the other hand, he does not mention Cicero, while I did come across a strong similarity.

In itself it is not surprising that people who are involved in influencing other people from their profession come to the same conclusion. Especially if they have never met. It does reinforce the claim that a 2,000-year-old book can still be very useful and worth reading. For example, the books of Sun Tzu and Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar, contemporary, political opponent and personal friend of Cicero) are also still read today to learn more about military strategies.

Both Cicero and van Marwijk discuss the influence you can exert as a speaker on the emotion of your listener. Cicero focuses it on a lawsuit (and in particular the judge and jury), van Marwijk applies it to colleagues and/or managers. To illustrate the parallels I first give an example from Cicero's book and then compare it with van Marwijk.

In his second conversation (the second part of the book), Cicero discusses the different emotions that can be aroused in audience. A distinction is made between ethos (presenting one's own case or defendant as fortunately as possible) and pathos (influencing the emotions of the audience). I mainly cite the pathos, and Cicero says the following:

Truly, I never intended to arouse sorrow or pity or envy or hatred in judges by my words, without myself, in influencing those judges, being seized by the same feelings I wished to instill in them. After all, it is not easy for the judge to become furious with your opponent if you yourself make a laconic impression; or that he will hate this one, if he has not first noticed in you glowing hatred; or that he be moved to pity, if you have not shown him by your words and thoughts, by your voice, by your countenance, yea, even by your tears, the signs of your own sorrow! (M. Tullius Cicero, de Ideale redenaar, Athenaeum - Polak & van Gennep, 2,189)

Here he draws on his personal experience how the correct generation of pathos works: you have to feel it yourself, otherwise it will not work. Van Marwijk gives the same advice in chapter 2; from page 25 to page 34, he discusses that feigning the right emotion can win people over and that emotions are contagious. So you can make someone feel what you feel, what you want them to feel. What you show (facial expression, hand gestures, etc.) is stronger than what you say. If it doesn't match, you won't be believed and your argument will come across weaker.

Cicero further elaborates on specific emotions in his book. He says the following about compassion:

Finally, pity is aroused if the hearer can be made to relate the misery of the other to his own circumstances, in the form of bitter experiences from his past or anxious worries for his future, so that seeing of the other constantly reminds him of himself. And of all cases of human misery, each of which makes a deep impression when told in a poignant way, depressed and downtrodden virtue arouses the most pity. (M. Tullius Cicero, de Ideale redenaar, Athenaeum - Polak & van Gennep, 2,211)

Cicero advises here to ensure that the listener recognizes himself in the situation of the accused and to feel sorry for him. In other words, being able to mirror and recognize oneself in the other person. Van Marwijk devotes a chapter to this (number 8). He literally says:

The more you mimic someone, the more they will appreciate you and the better you understand each other. (Frank van Marwijk, Manipuleren kun je leren, Haystack, page 95)

Conclusion

Both writers give almost the same advice, both from a slightly different context. Van Marwijk writes his advice in a somewhat accessible format and places it in examples of contemporary situations. Cicero focuses primarily on lawsuits, yet his advice remains relevant to anyone who speaks publicly, attends meetings, or generally wants to get more done. I find it remarkable to see that human communities and interactions have not changed all that much in 2000 years.