Crassus, Antonius, and Scaevola on civil law and expertise in Book I of De Oratore

Michael de Brauw (Northwestern University)

In Book I of De Oratore, Cicero has L. Licinius Crassus deliver a speech on the importance of orators knowing civil law (1.166-203). The other main interlocutor, Marcus Antonius, argues to the contrary that orators have no need of book learning in general and can safely leave the study of law to the jurists, such Q. Mucius Scaevola, who is also present in Book I of the dialogue. Crassus seems generally more positive about civil law, and so most readers assume that Scaevola is more sympathetic to his position than to Antonius’. In this paper however I wish to highlight an underlying point of agreement between Scaevola and Antonius: unlike Crassus, both see a clear boundary between oratory and the study of civil law as disciplines. I conclude by considering the effect of their disagreement with Crassus for Cicero’s characterization of him.

For Crassus, knowing civil law is simply part of being a good patronus. Advocates who fail to learn it only do so only out of laziness, which is shameful because their ignorance can harm their clients (1.173-85). It is even more shameful because civil law, according to him, is exceedingly easy to learn: it not contained in so many books, but available in every day life in the forum (1.191-95). It is barely a form of expertise.

Antonius’ argument (1.234-55) against the orator studying civil law is more cogent than often observed. He also claims that his view of the relationship between oratory and civil law gives more credit to the latter than Crassus’ does. Sure he says eloquence often defeats legal argument in trials. But for him, at least civil law is its own discipline, and not just an attendant to oratory (1.234-36).

At the beginning of Crassus’ speech, Scaevola voices agreement with the notion that orators who are ignorant of civil law are shameful (1.167). Scaevola is silent however as Crassus expands on his point that civil law is easy to learn. At the end of Crassus’ speech, he politely avoids commenting on the substance of the second half (1.204). As for his reaction to Antonius’ speech, he is naturally unhappy to hear Antonius exalt in the ways law is sometimes powerless before rhetoric, but he appreciates Antonius’ recognition of a boundary between the two disciplines (1.265). Scaevola makes a similar point against Crassus earlier in the dialogue, when he suggests the philosophers might sue Crassus for he is trespassing on their discipline (1.41).

That Crassus’ opinion is allowed to stand even while his interlocutors disagree (and after good arguments have been made against it) contributes to Cicero’s characterization of him and, in a subtle way, to Cicero’s own self-presentation. The achievement of mastering more than one subject, i.e., both oratory and civil law, is all the more impressive if the subjects can be seen as truly distinct fields. As Scaevola says, if Crassus is able to master more than the functions that are conventionally associated with the orator, “I will reckon that you have this capacity not as an orator, but as Crassus, by a certain faculty particular to you (sua quadam propria), not that which is common to orators” (1.44, trans. May and Wisse). Cicero, who, by writing for all the characters, advertises his own breadth of expertise, surely wanted readers to reach the same conclusion about him.