We have seen throughout his discussion of inventio, dispositio, and elocutio that Quintilian repeatedly insists on the relevance of his precepts to actual practice in the courts. It is logical then that he grants the utmost importance to the last of the five traditional rhetorical tasks: delivery (dealt with in 11.3; see too chapter 17). Quintilian adheres to the widespread assumption that mediocre speeches, if well delivered, will be far more effective than the best of speeches poorly performed (11.3.5), something he must have learned from direct experience since he did plead before the court on occasions (Crook 1995: 161-71; Quintilian explains features of his own argumentative practice in 7.1.23-39 and alludes to several cases in which he took part at 9.2.73, 4.1.19, 6.1.39). Quintilian’s most famous case was the defense of Queen Berenice, Titus’ mistress (the precise charge against her is unknown; see Young-Widmaier 2002), and he also admits to having published his speech for a Naevius Arpinius (7.2.24) in a youthful attempt to gain fame.
Quintilian’s great concern with delivery is evident in several parts of the Institutio. In book 1, for example, he recommends instruction in acting and gymnastic techniques (1.11.15-19) and in book 12 retirement is recommended precisely on the grounds of the orator’s physical decline (12.11.2). In this area even more than others Quintilian’s account (11.3) is the fullest treatment of the subject we can read (Cicero dealt with the matter briefly and unsystematically in De Or. 3.213-27 and Orat. 5560), and it is likely that he broke new ground in giving such detailed attention to an area that in other treatises was left to common sense and whose content had never been made fully explicit (see Hall 2004).
Quintilian thus gives detailed discussions of voice (11.3.15-30) and the general qualities of good delivery (11.3.30-65), then proceeds to gesture, where he deals one by one with the different parts of the body: head, face, neck, shoulders, and arms (11.3.65-84). Hands receive a good deal of Quintilian’s attention (11.3.85-121; see Maier-Eichhorn 1989), and a discussion of the orator’s dress as well as gestures featuring other parts of the body (11.3.137-49) closes the account. Quintilian insists here, as often, on the need for appropriateness and ends by warning: huius quoque loci clausula sit eadem necesse est quae ceterorum est, regnare maxime modum (‘‘it is necessary for the conclusion of this topic to also be the same as that which applies to the others: moderation rules,’’ 11.3.181).
There has been some debate about how artificial the rhetorical system of gestures outlined by Quintilian actually was and to what extent it was based on the gestures commonly used in daily life. Some scholars, perhaps misled by the minute detail of Quintilian’s account and prescriptions, have claimed that such a system was quite separate from everyday gestural communication and that it could only be learned and mastered through arduous training in rhetorical schools. This view has been rightly contested (for full discussion see Hall 2004, where wide bibliographical reference is provided), and Quintilian’s precepts are best regarded as a conscious selection and stylization of everyday Roman nonverbal communication. Such a selection must be based, once again, on the orator’s sense of dignity, which implies the rejection of improper bodily movements and gestures, especially those that are conceived of as ‘‘effeminate’’ (11.3.32, 11.3.91). The range of issues for which rhetoric functions as a process of acculturation thus extends even to the orator’s awareness of his own ‘‘manly’’ body, a feature that has been fruitfully exploited by gender theorists (see Gunderson 2000: 59-86; also Connolly chapter 7).
World History
