Notes for speeches

Post Reply
User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Notes for speeches

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

https://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com ... rsNYrfJ9io

I wasn't sure where to post this. Here are Pliny's actual words:

Nam et Celsus Nepoti ex libello respondit et Celso Nepos ex pugillaribus. (Ep. 6.5)

Notice that the blog writer gets the case of the nouns wrong... But what think ye? Any evidence that this kind of thing was widespread, the use of notes when making speeches?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

jacknoutch
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 pm
Location: East Midlands, UK

Re: Notes for speeches

Post by jacknoutch »

After a short search, which I look forward to renewing, I haven't been able to find any other examples of Roman public speakers using notes, though my instinct is that it was not unusual. I find it hard to believe that the near thousand senators during the triumviral period were all keen orators, ready to speak by memorisation alone. Part of the uselessness of Celsus and Nepos is that they rely on their notes even though there were several exchanges. I would be disappointed in an MP in Parliament who couldn't respond to something on the hoof, even though I recognise many of them require the prop and aid of reading notes for their initial contribution. None of this is hard evidence, however.

There is plenty of evidence, of course, for the opposite of what Pliny describes - namely, taking down oral speech into writing. The famous shorthand of Cicero's secretary Tiro is probably the best example, notable for its uniqueness and usefulness in an age not accustomed to the ability to record oral speech so accurately.

I shall keep an eye out for orators-by-note-not-by-rote.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Notes for speeches

Post by seneca2008 »

I have a few thoughts but I am no expert.

I think the author of the blog post immediately sets off on a false premise. He poses an opposition between "rote memorization" and "making ... speeches directly from notes".

When I studied Lysias I was taught that speech writers would compose speeches for their clients to deliver in Court from memory. Kennedy says this practice was rare at Rome (The art of rhetoric in the Roman world p 12-13)

Roman elite figures were given a thorough rhetorical training and taught, by means of exercises, Controversiae and Suasoriae of the sort described by Seneca the elder, to improvise their own speeches. Legal cases were tried using professional advocates although many public figures could plead their own cases. We know that the texts of Cicero's speeches were extensively amended for publication and so are no guide to what he actually said.

Nero was criticised, in the admittedly heavily biased, sources for having delivered a Eulogy for Claudius written by Seneca (the younger). None seem to talk about whether the speech was delivered from memory or not but perhaps if he had simply read it out it would have been specifically mentioned. As it is Tacitus compares Nero's apparent lack of eloquence unfavourably with other members of the Julio Claudian dynasty - Caesar rivalled the best speakers etc.

Some judicial cases were extended over two actions and in the second, evidence that had been advanced in the first was questioned. (Again see Kennedy). All this would suggest to me that there was some kind of written record which could be referred to.

When I was younger, MPs in the British parliament who appeared to be reading their speeches or used notes extensively would be barracked by others with shouts of "reading!" . I am not sure whether this was some form of etiquette or an actual rule of the house. This form of criticism has almost disappeared. I think one can see the prohibition as some kind of imagined ancient rhetorical practice but of course it can also be seen as an institutionalised form of power exerted by an elite who were the product of the public schools where some rhetorical training was given.

To return to the blog I think that the argument could be saved if the author dropped the false opposition of rote memorisation and speaking from notes. The intersection of orality and writing is fascinating and I am sure someone must have written about it. If I find anything I will let you know.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Notes for speeches

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Just for the record, I very much appreciate these responses. Thanks!
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

Shenoute
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Notes for speeches

Post by Shenoute »

I agree with seneca that it doesn't have to be an either-or question, rote memorisation vs. relying entirely on notes.

My only contribution to other possible witnesses of the use of notes is limited to this extract from Suetonius' life of Caesar:
Ob haec simul et ob infirmam valitudinem diu cunctatus an se contineret et quae apud senatum proposuerat agere differret, tandem Decimo Bruto adhortante, ne frequentis ac iam dudum opperientis destitueret, quinta fere hora progressus est libellumque insidiarum indicem ab obvio quodam porrectum libellis ceteris, quos sinistra manu tenebat, quasi mox lecturus commiscuit.
So, Caesar was going to the Senate with a bunch of libelli in his left hand, the same word being used for the paper thrown to him. Were the ones he already had in hand notes for an upcoming speech or simply documents he would be studying?

Post Reply