Gesture

Rhetorica ad Herennium provides our oldest extant discussion of gesture from the late republic and it is based upon the taxonomical scheme that the Auctor has already established for his discussion of the voice (see figure 2 below). The different kinds of gesture that the orator can use are thus keyed in to the different moods and aims of the various parts of a forensic speech. The serious, dignified tone often employed at the start of a speech, for example, calls for a gentle movement of the right hand and arm (3.26); the more assertive, argumentative tone typical of the refutation requires a brisker motion of the arm, which is sometimes thrust out quite vigorously (3.27). Perhaps most importantly three quite specific gestures are mentioned in connection with the more emotionally charged moments of a speech: stamping the foot (supplausio pedis, 3.27) is used to express forcefulness in debate, while

Figure 2 The taxonomy of oratorical gesture as presented in Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.26-7

Striking the thigh (feminis plangor, 3.27) and smiting the head (capitis ictus, 3.27) can be used in the emotional peroration of a speech. These are not gestures regularly used by modern public speakers in western English-speaking countries, but they seem to have formed part of a common repertoire of oratorical gesture in Rome; Cicero too mentions them, although not in his formal discussions of actio. They thus represent a significant cultural difference in the gestural expression of high emotion in public. There was room, however, for different aesthetic perspectives: Quintilian regards striking the forehead as too theatrical (scaenicus, Inst. 11.3.123); and the Auctor seems to suggest that a plaintive effect can also be achieved in the conquestio through the use of a calm and continuous style of gesturing (sedatus et constans gestus). Generally he recommends that the orator stand still when speaking (3.26), although some walking back and forth (inambulatio, 3.27) during the more confrontational parts of an oration is appropriate.

The Auctor also shows an interest in the facial expressions (vultus) that the orator should employ at different moments in a speech. The inclusion of this topic in discussions of delivery seems to go back to Theophrastus and is found in Cicero’s treatment too (Fortenbaugh 1985: 272-3). The Auctor recommends, for example, that the orator use a facial expression that is maestus et conturbatus (‘‘sad and distressed’’) when attempting in the peroration to play upon the jurors’ pity (Rhet. Her. 3.27). The aim of such advice is partly to ensure that word, gesture and facial expression all correspond with each other. But it is also recognized that facial expression can lend authority and conviction to the orator’s words. The Auctor’s discussion of the subject, however, is relatively brief. He suggests that the orator direct his head and expression more obviously toward the audience when laying out the background to a case in the demonstratio, presumably in an attempt to convey a sense of earnest engagement with them. And in the continuous tone of debate, the rapid movements of the arm (bracchium celer) are to be complemented by ready changes in facial expression (mobilis vultus). When debating specific points, however, he recommends a more fiery (acer) and unchanging expression (defixus aspectus). Even with these prescriptions, the Auctor’s discussion of gesture still runs to only two sections in total and omits detailed descriptions of gestures using the fingers or hands.

As in his discussion of the voice, Cicero makes no attempt to apply a taxonomical approach in his treatment of gesture. Indeed, his main concern is to offer basic guidelines on the kind of gesturing to avoid. In De Oratore, for example, he states that hand gestures should complement what is being said, but not attract attention to themselves through too much movement, or through too explicit a representation of the subject matter. Indeed Cicero characterizes gestures that represent specific words or emotions as too theatrical (3.220); he does not, however, go beyond these general principles to discuss exactly what gestures should be used to reinforce the orator’s words in the way that he suggests. His discussion in Orator (59-60) is scarcely more detailed, and the overall impression emerges that while he had clear ideas about the kinds of gesture that the orator should not use, he did not apply any detailed theoretical analysis to the gestures that he himself employed.

Quintilian’s discussion of gesture differs in several important ways. Most strikingly he goes beyond the three basic emotional gestures outlined by Cicero and the Auctor and includes detailed descriptions of the various smaller movements of the hands that the orator can use in conjunction with his words. At Institutio Oratoria 11.3.92, for example, Quintilian describes in the following terms a gesture especially well suited to a speech’s exordium:

Est autem gestus ille maxime communis, quo medius digitus in pollicem contrahitur explicitis tribus, et principiis utilis cum leni in utramque partem motu modice prolatus, simul capite atque umeris sensim ad id quo manus feratur, obsecundantibus. (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 11.3.92)

There is however that especially common gesture, in which the middle finger is placed against the thumb and the other three extended. It is suited to the openings of speeches; the hand is carried forward a short distance with a gentle movement to left and right, while the head and shoulders slowly follow the hand’s direction.

In all he describes some twenty different gestures involving the hands. These gestures form part of a larger discussion in which the orator’s use of various parts of his body during delivery are methodically described, beginning with the head (11.3.68) and proceeding in turn down to the legs and feet (11.3.128). Modern scholars have tended to view Quintilian’s detailed guidelines here as a complex and challenging theoretical system, sharply divorced from everyday experience (see, e. g., Graf 1991: 50; Aldrete 1999: 17). But this view privileges theory over practice. Quintilian in fact tells us that hand gestures played a significant part in day-to-day communication in Roman society (11.3.85-6). The budding orator will thus have already acquired quite an extensive vocabulary of conversational hand gestures as he was growing up; many of these are likely to have been the same as, or to have formed the basis of, the gestures that Quintilian proposes for oratorical use. The main challenge for the young orator was not so much acquiring a new vocabulary of gesture, as it was adapting his existing practices to the precision and emphasis required by formal oratorical performance. Moreover, given that there was almost certainly a strong cultural continuity from republic to empire in the use of everyday conversational gesture, it is likely that Cicero himself made considerable use of the hand gestures that Quintilian describes even though he has little interest in discussing such minutiae in his own rhetorical works. To this extent Quintilian’s impressive and fascinating catalogue of hand gestures does not reflect a significant development in the practice of oratorical delivery in the imperial period; it is rather a case of rhetorical theory finally taking an interest in and describing phenomena that had been in common use for generations (Hall 2004).

With Quintilian’s discussion the study of oratorical delivery, especially gesture, at last comes of age. Certainly the influence of earlier writers such as Nigidius Figulus is difficult to judge; but Quintilian’s treatment is admirable for its interest in the finer details of hand gestures, the precision of its descriptions, and the methodical way in which he addresses each aspect that contributes to the orator’s performance as a whole. It is clear too that delivery now received greater attention in the schoolroom than it had previously. Quintilian observes, for example, that some students make the mistake of planning the gestures to be used before they have decided on their actual words (11.3.109). This self-conscious analysis of hand gestures would have been quite unfamiliar to the late republican orator. Quintilian too pays attention to the appropriateness of the orator’s facial expression (11.3.72-81), although, as in his discussion of the voice, his experience as a teacher of young students leads him to refer to a good many faults that we today would not perhaps expect a mature orator to display. He also extends his discussion to include topics such as the orator’s handling of his toga during a speech. With such subjects we cross over into the wider sphere of image management, an important subject discussed further below.