Final answer:
Cicero likely critiqued the Sophists for prioritizing persuasive success over true argument. He valued moral and philosophical ideals, which contrasted with the Sophists' approach. Other sources reflect the era's concern with the ethical implications of the Sophists' rhetoric.
Step-by-step explanation:
Cicero, in his work De Oratore, would have likely criticized the Sophists for their rhetorical style that favored form over substantive argument and their practice of taking money for teaching persuasive skills. Although Cicero himself was a renowned orator and significantly influenced the rhetorical tradition, he also held a deep commitment to moral and philosophical ideals which the Sophists were often accused of lacking. Instead of pursuing truth and justice, the Sophists were known for their ability to argue any position for personal gain and to teach others to do the same. Their skill in speaking well was crucial in a society where oral arguments were key to legal and political success; however, the Sophists' focus on winning arguments rather than finding truth would have been at odds with Cicero's stated ideals.
The historical context provided by Plato and Quintilian shares common concerns about the Sophists, thus giving a backdrop against which Cicero's views can be understood. Plato criticized the Sophists for leading people against their self-interests, while Quintilian advised on proper oratorical technique, referencing Cicero's thoughts on natural body movements over theatrics. These insights reveal the tension between a virtuous oratorical practice, as envisioned by Cicero, and the Sophists’ mercenary approach to public speaking and education.