Quintilian devotes an entire chapter to the theory of jokes at Institutio Oratoria 6.3, a discussion that is only a little shorter than Cicero’s own excursus. Since other rhetorical textbooks surviving from the time hardly paid any attention at all to this subject, Quintilian’s treatment may well be inspired by Cicero’s example. The latter’s influence is in fact evident from the very beginning of the chapter where Quintilian feels obliged to defend Cicero against the well-known charge that he was unable to show restraint in joking (Inst. 6.3.2-5). On the other hand, it is clear that Quintilian, unlike Cicero, is writing a textbook. He is making a marked attempt to render a clearly structured, systematic and comprehensive account. A distinct attempt at integration of the theory of the laughable into the wider rhetorical system is even more evident here than it is in Cicero. The fact that the realization falls short of the author’s intentions is a different matter.
Like Cicero, Quintilian discusses wit immediately after his treatment of ethos and pathos. After some introductory remarks he addresses the question of the origin of laughter (Inst. 6.3.7), which he too is unable to answer, and discusses its power and effect (6.3.8-9). The question that took up a large part of Cicero’s excursus, the usefulness and possibility of rules in the field of the laughable, is disposed of briefly by Quintilian (6.3.11-16). While he too recognizes that there is not much room for theory here, he does allow that wit can be developed through certain oratorical exercises. There then follows a survey of terminology (6.3.17-21), in which the terms urbanitas, venus-tus, salsus, facetus, iocus, and dicacitas are discussed. The inclusion of this survey illustrates well Quintilian’s pursuit of systematization and didactic clarity.
At this point comes the central section of the chapter (6.3.22-100), on which a little more will be said below. The chapter is closed by an appendix (6.3.102-12) in which Quintilian, in reaction to the (now lost) tract De Urbanitate by Domitius Marsus, a contemporary of Augustus, addresses this important subject. In the form of a long quotation we learn that Marsus’ definition of urbanitas and the homo urbanus were based upon Cato (Censorius?). (Cicero himself had not dared to define this elusive concept; see Brut. 171.) Quintilian thinks that Marsus’ definition is too general and he presents his own definition - couched in negative terms - at 6.3.107. According to this, urbanitas is based not so much on humor and wit, as on a language, attitude, and expression free from any alien element or dissonance, where not so much the individual words matter as the color of the language as a whole, just as the Greek notion attikismos reproduces the scent of Athens.
As we have seen, the structure of Cicero’s excursus on wit is not clear on first sight. One gets the impression that Quintilian already had his difficulties with it; at least, there are indications that he has tried to replace Cicero’s structure by a more perspicuous one (for details cf. Kuhnert 1962). The primary division is found in 6.3.22: the laughable is either based on content or on words. Next, Quintilian distinguishes between three kinds of use (6.3.23): laughter is derived either from others or from ourselves or from neutral objects. Finally, in 6.3.23 we find the following division: the laughable is either done or said. The last division is dealt with first (6.3.25-6 and 6.3.27-35, respectively). In 6.3.35-7 Quintilian proceeds to the topics of the laughable; yet another disposition is found in 6.3.37: ridicula... aut ostenduntur (6.3.38) aut narrantur (6.3.39-44) aut dicto notantur (6.3.45-70) (‘‘the laughable is either shown or narrated or censured with a witticism’’). This scheme is apparently meant as an improvement on Cicero’s division into cavillatio and dicacitas (Cicero at De Or. 2.240-2 distinguishes two subcategories of cavillatio, namely narratio and imitatio depravata). Whereas Cicero at one point replaces this division by a different one, Quintilian subsumes both jokes based on words (6.3.4656) and jokes based on content (6.3.57-65) under dicto notantur. The main part (6.3.71-100) ends with the treatment of the threefold use announced in 6.3.23. Just as in Cicero, all categories are illustrated by one or more examples.
As to the question of the sources of Quintilian’s chapter, Kuhnert’s elaborate study (1962) is again fundamental. His conclusions can be summarized as follows: Quintilian’s most important source was Cicero, both the excursus in the second book of De Oratore and the much shorter account in the Orator. The question whether or not Quintilian’s chapter contains ‘‘remains of sound Greek theory not transmitted by Cicero’’ - thus Kroll (1934c: 345), who takes the affirmative view - is answered in the negative by Kuhnert. According to Kuhnert Quintilian has not independently used any Greek sources. Almost all elements in Quintilian’s text that cannot be traced back to Cicero should be explained from his use of Domitius Marsus’ tract De Urbanitate. Apart from this Quintilian has made use of some collections of witticisms, among others the collection of Ciceronian bons mots that had been compiled by his secretary and freedman Tiro.
World History
