Voice

The first of the voice’s aspects - its volume (magnitudo) - was, as we have seen, a crucial one for Roman orators because of the physical environment in which they usually delivered their speeches. The Auctor recognizes, however, that the loudness of one’s voice is largely determined by nature (Rhet. Her. 3.20), and to this extent is scarcely open to actual improvement by the art of rhetoric. The orator’s main priority is to ensure that this natural quality is not damaged by overuse or poor vocal technique. Recommendations in this regard included warming up the voice before embarking on highly forceful or emotional passages, and incorporating a variety of tone within one’s delivery, in order to allow the voice to refresh itself (Rhet. Her. 3.21-2). This problem of overstraining the voice highlights the considerable stress in general that oratorical performance placed on the body of the Roman orator. Speakers in the senate and law courts could be required to speak for several hours at a time; indeed Cicero at Brutus 313 claims that these exertions posed a serious risk to his health when he first embarked on his oratorical career. Advanced training for a further couple of years in Rhodes and Asia Minor allowed him to refine his technique and develop his bodily strength. (Plut. Cic. 3 suggests that Cicero’s main reason for going to Asia was to escape from the political dangers in Rome at this time; but the two explanations are not mutually exclusive.) Later in his career, Cicero evidently modified his technique still further because of his advancing years (Leg. 1.11; on the orator’s voice-training in general, see Krumbacher 1920: 81-100).

The second main quality of the voice identified by the Auctor is stability (firmi-tudo), by which he seems to mean its ability to retain a solid tone and pitch throughout a speech (so as not to ‘‘crack,’’ as we would say). This quality is best acquired through frequent practice and exercise, and so again is not susceptible to precepts devised by rhetoricians (Rhet. Her. 3.20). The main way in which the rhetorical art can help the orator’s delivery is by offering guidance on the voice’s third quality, its flexibility in tone (mollitudo). The Auctor identifies three basic categories of vocal tone that the orator can use (see figure 1 below): a conversational tone (sermo), a tone of debate (contentio), and a heightened tone (amplificatio). Each of these categories is then subdivided into a number of different types: one conversational tone is suited to narrative, for example, and another to facetious or joking remarks. Each of these different types is briefly described in turn in order to help the student understand how to produce the required tone. It is recommended, for instance, that when explaining the background of a law case (that is, when using the conversational expository tone or demonstratio), the speaker should use a rather

Figure 1 The taxonomy of vocal delivery as presented in Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.20-4

Light or thin tone of voice (voce paululum attenuata), with frequent pauses and rests (crebris intervallis et divisionibus) which allow what is being said to settle firmly in the audience’s mind (Rhet. Her. 3.24).

The different types of tone described by the Auctor correspond roughly to the different sections of a regular forensic speech. In the exordium, for example, the orator is often concerned with projecting an image of himself as reliable and trustworthy; he therefore needs to employ a tone of voice that conveys a certain dignitas (Rhet. Her. 3.24). Next he will usually need to explain certain matters to the jury (hence the term demonstratio) and give his client’s version of events regarding the case at hand (narratio), tasks that involve rather different tones of voice. He may sometimes employ humor in these sections as well, an approach that likewise calls for a change in vocal style. A rather more vigorous manner, however, is required when the orator moves on to the refutation, and it is here that he should use the tone of debate (contentio). This will vary according to whether the assertive remarks are presented in a single sustained passage ( continuatio) or as a series of separate exclamations (distributio). Finally, when speaking for the prosecution the orator will usually conclude with an attempt to exaggerate the wrongdoing of the accused and to urge the jury towards a conviction (cohortatio); when speaking for the defense, he will often close with an emotional plea for the jury to show mercy to the accused (conquestio). These two approaches are both classified under the heading of the ‘‘heightened tone,’’ but call for quite different vocal styles (Rhet. Her. 3.24).

The actual tones of voice that the Auctor recommends are not too different perhaps from those that we might expect a skilled public speaker or lawyer to use today. Perhaps most noteworthy is the recommendation that in a plea for mercy the voice should be relatively low in pitch (inclinato sono) and restrained (voce depressa). The other features mentioned in connection with such pleas - long pauses, frequent hesitations, an overall variety in tone (magnis commutationibus) - point to a degree of theatricality and showmanship during this part of the speech (as do the accompanying gestures discussed below). The relatively restrained vocal pitch may well be intended to help retain a measure of impressiveness and grandeur within this general animation (see Gleason 1995: 92 for the associations of dignity with a low voice).

The Auctor’s discussion overall has the virtues of clarity and utility, virtues not to be scorned given the handbook’s pedagogical intent. For the modern scholar too it offers useful information about how orators handled the different parts of their speeches. Cicero in De Oratore, however, takes a very different approach to the subject. He eschews the taxonomic approach of the Auctor, which, as we have seen, is organized around the tone of voice required by the different sections of a speech, and bases his discussion instead on the different emotions that the orator wishes to express. He thus describes (De Or. 3.217-19) the tone to be used in order to convey iracundia (‘‘anger’’), miseratio ac maeror (‘‘compassion and sorrow’’), metus (‘‘fear’’), vis (‘‘forcefulness’’), voluptas (‘‘joy’’), and molestia (‘‘dejection’’). (On Cicero’s categorization of vis as an emotion, see Fortenbaugh 1985: 280-1.) Like the Auctor, Cicero gives a brief description of each tone of voice to be used; the fearful tone, for example, is flexibile, plenum, interruptum, flebili voce (‘‘wavering, full, halting, and mournful’’), the angry tone acutum, incitatum, crebro incidens (‘‘sharp, rapid, with short abrupt clauses,’’ De Or. 3.217-18). Cicero, however, further illustrates each tone by quoting passages from Latin drama in which characters express these emotions. The following quote from Ennius’ Medea, for instance, is used to convey the tone to be used for compassion and sorrow: quo nunc me vertam? quod iter incipiam ingredi? / domum paternamque? anne ad Peliae filias? (‘‘Where am I to turn now? On what path am I to embark? / Go to the house of my father? Or to the daughters of Pelias?’’, De Or. 3.217).

There is an element of circularity in the method here. For the reader requires a measure of interpretive sensitivity in order to recreate effectively the emotional nuances presented in each dramatic passage; and yet it is this very skill at vocal interpretation that Cicero’s discussion as a whole is trying to develop (cf. Sonkowsky 1959: 272). This is not to say, however, that the approach has no merit. The quotations provide useful prompts to the imagination, helping the student to understand more precisely the emotions to be expressed and to appreciate the contexts in which the different tones of voice are to be used. Cicero’s use of illustrative passages from Roman drama also highlights the close association in his mind between the techniques of performance employed by both actor and orator (Petrone 2004: 40-8; Fantham 2002; see further discussion below).

Quintilian’s discussion of the voice (Inst. 11.3.15-65) is far more detailed than those of the Auctor and Cicero, although there are several points of contact. Like the Auctor he acknowledges that nature determines many of the voice’s properties (11.3.11), and he is similarly concerned with how to protect the voice from excessive strain (11.3.19). Largely because of his position as teacher of teenage students, however, Quintilian provides advice on the smaller details of vocal delivery, such as the articulation of words (the speaker is to avoid clipping final syllables), and the effective phrasing of linguistic units (11.3.33-4). It is in the course of this latter discussion that he engages in a detailed analysis of how best to deliver the opening line of Vergil’s Aeneid - a valuable piece of evidence for modern scholars trying to understand the dynamics of Latin hexameter verse (11.3.35). Quintilian also presents a detailed analysis of the opening sentences of Cicero’s Pro Milone. In this case he illustrates the subtle variations that can be incorporated within just a few lines, even though these lines can be categorized as a whole as belonging to the homogeneous tone of the exordium (11.3.47).

Quintilian’s pedagogical concerns also lead him to stress the faults that the budding orator is to avoid, including such prosaic problems as coughing and taking noisy or obvious breaths (11.3.51-6). His greatest disapproval, however, is reserved for the histrionic sing-song style of delivery (vitium cantandi) then in vogue in the schools of declamation, and even in the courts themselves. Quintilian embarks upon a forceful diatribe against the practice (11.3.57-60), railing mainly against its similarities to theatrical singing (modulatio scaenica, 11.3.57) and its lack of dignity. He is not alone in his scorn of such practices; we find similar complaints in Tacitus (Dial. 26), the elder Seneca (Suas. 2.10), the younger Seneca (Ep. 114.1), and the younger Pliny (Ep. 2.14.12-13). This chorus of condemnation seems formidable; and yet this mannered style persisted long enough for Lucian in the mid-second century to satirize it (Rh. Pr. 15-19), and similar complaints are found in his contemporary Aristides (Or. 34; Gleason 1995: 124-30). It was most likely the product of specific schools in which the literary and artistic dimensions of declamation were valued more highly than the practical value of oratorical persuasiveness. This emphasis on individual artistry seems to have had considerable appeal to the young, competitive student;

The elder Seneca (Suas. 2.10) admits to having been intrigued as a youngster by Arellius Fuscus’ ornate language and to have imitated his sing-song style of performance. This rather artificial style of delivery thus offers an insight into the aesthetic that developed in some of advanced rhetorical institutions of the time. As Quintilian notes, however, the young speakers coming out of these schools faced severe problems when they tried to apply these techniques in actual law courts (Inst. 4.2.39, 11.3.57-9).

At the same time, Quintilian acknowledges that, as Cicero himself had asserted, there is a place on occasions for a kind of singing in oratorical performance. Cicero’s phrase at Orator 57 is cantus obscurior, singing that is in some way muffled or restrained. Quintilian’s objection is precisely that many of his contemporaries do not muffle or restrain these sing-song elements in the way that Cicero prescribes (Quint. Inst. 11.3.60). It is not in fact clear from Cicero’s own remarks what type of effect he had in mind, although Quintilian offers some suggestions. He proposes, for example, (Inst. 11.3.167) that in Cicero’s phrase in coetu vero populi Romani, negotium publicum gerens at Philippics 2.63 the pronunciation of the words is to be drawn out, with the vowels stretched ( trahenda) and the throat opened wide ( aper-ienda), presumably in a manner used more often in singing than speaking. This creates, he says, the type of cantus obscurior that Cicero was referring to (11.3.172), although the tone and length of the syllables could be varied and stretched even more in exclamations such as me miserum, me infelicem (“o wretched, unhappy me!’’). These remarks, however, are almost certainly a matter of informed guesswork, not least because Philippic 2 was never actually delivered by Cicero. Nevertheless, both Cicero’s reference to a cantus obscurior and Quintilian’s interpretation of it point to the possibility of a quite extravagant and dramatic vocal style of delivery at specific moments within a speech.

Overall Quintilian’s discussion of vocal delivery shows little interest in the highly taxonomical approach favored by the Auctor; indeed, if anything, he is influenced by Cicero’s association of specific tones with different emotions (Inst. 11.3.62-7). As with his discussion of gesture, however, we get the impression that his treatment is an intelligent synthesis of wide study and practical experience. (On later treatises on the orator’s use of the voice, see Gleason 1995: 88-94.)