In his rhetorical treatises, Cicero drops some very interesting hints about the nature of oratory in the senate. On the whole, it seems to have been rather plain and simple. In De Oratore (2.333-4), it is stated that a speech in the senate should be characterized by less ornamentation (minor apparatus) because the audience was educated (sapiens) and because time had to be allowed for many other speakers to have a turn in the debate. It is further recommended that there be no blatant display of cleverness (ingeni ostentationis suspicio). By contrast, a speech aimed at persuading the people in a public meeting (a contio) needed to pull out all the stops and be full of weightiness and variety (contio capit omnem vim orationis et gravitatem varietatemque desiderat).
These brief remarks about the characteristics of an ideal senatorial oration can be fleshed out a bit by what Cicero tells us about the style of Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (consul 115), who was the chief member of the senate (princeps senatus) in the generation preceding Cicero’s. Speeches by Scaurus are said to have possessed weight (gravitas) and to have carried conviction ( auctoritas). They inspired trust of the sort that one might place in a witness giving testimony at a trial (Brut. 111). They are credited with having been ideally suited to stating one’s views in the senate, but they are judged less well adapted to the needs of defending a client, a task that often called for pyrotechnics and large doses of emotion (112).
Quintilian, writing in the imperial period, in the late first century ce, agrees with this judgment, stating that a somewhat lofty mode of speaking is ideal for producing persuasion in the senate (sublimius aliquid... dicendigenus), whereas when delivering a speech to the people a more emotional style (concitatius) is best (Inst. 8.3.14). This more animated style, it seems, was sometimes produced by the effect that a large audience could have on a speaker. Cicero claims that an orator can scarcely be eloquent without the inspiration of a vast crowd (De Or. 2.338); indeed, the reputation of a truly great orator ultimately rested on his public performances in front of the people who attended public meetings or formed the group of bystanders (corona) at trials (Brut. 186).
The crowds that gathered in the Forum or in the Circus Flaminius to hear a speech at a public meeting were often huge. They could include women as well as men, foreigners, and slaves as well as Roman citizens. Unfortunately no ancient source gives a figure for the size of these gatherings, but modern estimates range as high as 15,000 to 20,000 (MacMullen 1980a: 456; Millar 1998: 224). These are only approximations, of course, based upon taking into consideration: (1) the size of the meeting areas themselves, which were sometimes filled to capacity (De Imp. Cn. Pomp. 44, 69), and (2) the distance over which a human voice can be heard without the benefit of modern amplification equipment. If at a packed meeting we assign a maximum of four persons per square meter (a number that I have determined by experiment to be acceptable), then the two areas where the people met in the Forum could hold up to 12,800 persons (in front of the Rostra: roughly 3,200 square meters) and 19,000 (the slightly larger area in front of the Temple of Castor: approximately 4,800 square meters). The size of the crowds addressed in the 1874 elections by the nineteenth-century British politician and Prime Minister William Gladstone, figures ranging anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 persons (Jenkins 1995: 377), gives us some idea of the limits imposed by the carrying distance of an orator’s voice.
Oratory in the senate, by contrast, was practiced in meetings ranging in size from 200, which was regarded as a slim quorum (Cic. QFr. 2.1.1), to slightly over 400, which was looked upon as a well-attended (frequens) meeting (Att. 1.14.5, Red. Sen. 26). Furthermore, only the leading senators out of these 200 to 400-plus senators, as defined by their rank as ex-office holders and seniority, were given an opportunity to speak. The first to be called upon were always the consuls-elect, if elections had already been held for the following year. Next came all the ex-consuls who were present. In the age of Cicero, the presiding magistrate had some freedom in deciding the order in which the ex-consuls were invited to speak, but once that order had been established early in the year, it was usually maintained until a new set of magistrates took office. For instance, in 61 bce, two years after his consulship, Cicero occupied the second place among the ex-consuls (Att. 1.13) and in 58 he spoke third (Red. Sen. 17). After the ex-consuls had been heard from, the next to be called upon were the praetors-elect and then the ex-praetors.
Those farther down the ladder, especially junior senators who had risen no higher than the quaestorship, participated largely as silent members. These ‘‘backbenchers’’ (pedarii) expressed their opinion mostly by means of their feet (pedes), moving to one side or the other of the chamber when a formal division of the house was taken. Members also sometimes indicated their support for a view already expressed by moving to sit near the advocate(s) of that position, and a senator could yield his speaking time, when called upon, by uttering just a few brief words of assent with a previous speaker (QFr. 2.1.2). Cicero tells us that the noted jurist Quintus Mucius Scaevola (consul 117) often convinced his fellow senators to follow his expert opinion by speaking briefly, in an unadorned fashion (De Or. 1.214).
World History
