You've Heard of Roman Orators Like Cicero, But Have You Ever Read a Roman Declamation?

Ranging from the serious to the ridiculous, declamations were rhetorical exercises for budding and experienced orators looking to sharpen their skills in argumentation, persuasiveness, and reasoning.

When you think of Ancient Rome, one of the first things that comes to mind is probably someone like Cicero declaiming to a captive audience. Of course, rhetoric had very practical purposes in the Roman Republic (and, later, the Roman Empire), from lofty things like successfully arguing court cases and influentially addressing the Senate to speaking eloquently in public and in personal correspondence to friends.

Fresco of Cicero declaiming in the Senate, Cesare Maccari | Palazzo Madama, Rome

But how did Roman men learn the art of eloquence? I suppose that in some ways eloquence is innate, and some are more inclined to it than others. As it happens, though, the Romans had a rigorous schooling system for boys that taught them this practice from an early age.

This is where Roman declamation comes in: students would practice speeches and arguments, sort of like how kids do debate and mock trial in today’s world. These exercises would feature made-up or historical scenarios to get the brain working and to develop key skills in argumentation and strategy.

As the Romans grew up, however, they didn’t entirely abandon these low-key, informal rhetorical practices. It was basically a fun pastime for them!

The details: In the Roman Imperial period (first/second centuries CE, mostly), it was fairly popular practice for groups of friends (and specifically, groups of aristocratic men) to gather together and declaim on fictional topics of debate, ranging from the plausible to the completely absurd. I’ll explain about this in a minute.

There were two main kinds of declamation:

1. Controversial: In English, this means “Controversies.” These are fictional legal cases that often feature ridiculous scenarios. The exercise is for the group or individual declaimer to receive a prompt (see examples below) and then argue one of the two legal sides of the fictitious legal case.

• Example 1: A young man is captured by pirates. He writes to his father and asks him to pay the ransom. The father refuses. The daughter of the lead pirate offers to get him freed in return for the young man marrying her; he agrees. He returned to his father and married her. The father demands that the son divorce the pirate’s daughter and marry a local girl. The son doesn’t want to.

• Example 2: A rich man and a poor man are enemies, but their sons become friends. The rich man’s son is captured by pirates and then sold to a gladiatorial school. The poor man’s son voluntarily becomes a gladiator to support his friend, and ends up dying for the rich man’s son. The rich man’s son returns home and spends some of his trust fund helping the poor man, since the poor man’s son died on his behalf. The rich man disowns his son for helping his enemy, on the grounds that he can “regain” the money “lost” to the poor man by refusing to give his son the promised inheritance. The son sues and they go to court over it. The son sues his father.

• Example 3: A woman has a husband who is involved in a political conspiracy against the reigning tyrant. The woman is kidnapped and tortured by the tyrant to find out information, but she doesn’t betray her husband. Later, the husband divorces the wife on the grounds that the wife is unable to have children. She sues him for being ungrateful.

1. Suasoriae: In English, this means “persuasions” or “persuasive cases.” These were opportunities for the speaker to offer advice to (i.e., try to persuade) mythological or historical figures.

• Example 1: Persuade Cicero to surrender/not to surrender to Antony before he gets assassinated.

• Example 2: Persuade Agamemnon to sacrifice/not to sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia, to Artemis.

• Example 3: Persuade Alexander the Great to invade/not to invade Babylon, considering a prophecy has warned him that this would endanger his life.

You might think I’m making this stuff up, but these are real examples from Roman declamation. They were supposed to be fun, actually. In the case of the second example I give for the controversiae, the one about the two gladiators, one person might take the side of the son, for example, and argue that his father’s enmity was unrighteous, and that he doesn’t deserve to be disowned. His friend might take the side of the father, and they would go back and forth. In the case of the suasoriae, one person would argue that Agamemnon should not sacrifice his daughter, while someone else would argue the opposite side.

There are three main points to remember when declaiming:

1. The color of the declamation: the angle you’re going to take, or persona you’re going to give the person whose side you’re arguing. If you’re the father, will you be an angry or a gentle father? If you’re the son, will you try to be maximally pathetic, or aim for a tone of self-confidence?

2. The divisio of the declamation: the way you structure your argument, which points you make, and in what order you make them

3. The sententiae: these are witty sayings, kind of like mic-drop moments that make the whole audience go oooooh. You should aim to intersperse these at regular intervals for optimal dramatic effect.

There unfortunately aren’t a ton of these texts from antiquity that survive, but there are a good number of them! If you’re interested in reading them for yourself, they’re transmitted primarily in two sources. I’ve linked to the texts as well if you click on their names:

1. Seneca the Elder (Suasoriae, Controversiae)

   1. Seneca records his memories of past declamations and also gives information about various declaimers, so it’s very meta literary in a way. (Don’t confuse Seneca the Elder with his son, Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger!)

2. Quintilian (Major Declamations)

   1. Presents the declamations that someone could give, like pre-written speeches based on the given topic.

I especially love Seneca the Elder’s text because it’s framed as a series of declamations that Seneca remembers from his youth—hundreds of meetings with friends and acquaintances. Here, Seneca purports to record all the best arguments and witty sayings for the benefit of his children and other family members, claiming that he committed to memory all of these happy hours spent declaiming (Controversies 1 praef. 1):

You demand a thing that is more pleasant for me than it is easy; for you command me to make some indication of what I feel about these declaimers who lived during my time and to gather sayings from those declaimers, if any have not slipped from my memory. You ask this so that, although they have been taken away from your knowledge, you don’t have to simply believe what I say about those men, but you can also judge for yourselves.

Exigitis rem magis iucundam mihi quam facilem; iubetis enim quid de his declamatoribus sentiam, qui in aetatem meam inciderunt, indicare et si quae memoriae meae nondum elapsa sunt ab illis dicta colligere, ut, quamvis notitiae vestrae subducti sint, tamen non credatis tantum de illis sed et iudicetis.

In other words, Seneca the Elder undertakes this project so that those in later generations will not forget all the wonderful arguments and sententiae of those who lived during his own time.

The text is addressed to his sons, handing down the knowledge that Seneca has gathered over a lifetime. Most important is that the next generation should remember these great declaimers as real people with real personalities, and not just remain in the realm of urban legend. In the preface to Book 2, for example, Seneca tells his sons about the declamatory style of a philosopher, Fabianus. When he finishes describing Fabianus’ tranquil way of speaking, Seneca addresses his son Mela:

I recount these things, Mela, so much more gladly because I see that your mind shudders away from civic duties and is averse to all political ambition, desiring this one thing: to desire nothing. Nevertheless, you should study eloquence. It’s easy to move on from eloquence to all skills; it prepares even what it does not exercise for itself. Nor is it the case that you should think a trap is being laid for you, as though I bring this up so that the favor of a pursuit that turns out well should hold you; truly, I am not that impediment of a good mind: follow your mind’s inclination and, content with your father’s standing, take away the great part of fortune that is yours. Indeed, you have a greater intellect than your brothers, most accommodating of all good skills; and this very thing is proof of a better intellect, that it is not corrupted by its own goodness, so that one use that intellect badly.

Haec eo libentius, Mela, fili carissime, refero, quia video animum tuum a civilibus officiis abhorrentem et ab omni ambitu aversum hoc unum concupiscentem, nihil concupiscere—ut eloquentiae tamen studeas. Facilis ab hac in omnes artes discursus est; instruit etiam quod non sibi exercet. Nec est, quod insidias tibi putes fieri, quasi id agam, ut te bene cedentis studii favor teneat; ego vero non sum bonae mentis impedimentum: perge quo inclinat animus, et paterno contentus ordine subduc fortunae magnam tui partem. Erat quidem tibi maius ingenium quam fratribus tuis, omnium bonarum artium capacissimum; est et hoc ipsum melioris ingenii pignus non corrumpi bonitate eius, ut illo male utaris.

Although declamation ostensibly readies a young man to take on a role in politics, Seneca is heartened by Mela’s apparent aversion to politics and political ambition. Instead, it seems that young Mela has a philosopher’s spirit. (I wonder what the actual family philosopher, Mela’s brother Seneca the Younger, thought about this characterization!).

This is all interesting for many reasons, and particularly because, in ancient thinking, at any rate, there was seen to be some fundamental opposition between rhetoric and philosophy—and yet, in this introductory address to his son, Seneca seems to endorse declamation as a hobby or pursuit that actually facilitates the life of the mind.

Whereas the preface to Book 1 (from the first snippet we looked at) offers the reader the opportunity to move backwards in time and live (or re-live) the glorious past, the preface to Book 2 offers Mela an opportunity to pivot laterally in the present era and pursue an activity that will enrich his mind, which is capacissimus—an ideal condition for a mind studying declamation, which so frequently makes use of fantastic scenarios. Seneca thus turns the tables on the notion that declamation is a frivolous endeavor; instead, it is the pursuit of the most intelligent people. Importantly, Seneca presents declamation as both training for real life and a constructive alternative to it.

Declamation may have been more than just a fun pastime for the upper crust to keep their oratorical skills sharp. For example, Mary Beard has written an excellent article, “Looking (harder) for Roman myth,” which includes discussion of declamation as a means for the Romans to explore their history, cultural practices, legal precedents, and national legends and myths in a prescribed format.

In addition, I would add that declamation was also a chance for the Romans to exercise their creativity. In many cases, declaimers would kind of embellish the story as they went, add additional details to flesh out their characters, and basically go all-out in trying to outdo one another.

Let’s look at more of an actual declamation. As an example, let’s use the second Controversia topic I mentioned above, which is taken from Quintilian’s Major Declamations and is often referred to as The Gladiator.

This declamation is composed as a speech that assumes the persona of the rich man’s son. Recall the plot from above:

• A rich man and a poor man are enemies, but their sons become friends. The rich man’s son is captured by pirates and then sold to a gladiatorial school. The poor man’s son voluntarily becomes a gladiator to support his friend, and ends up dying for the rich man’s son. The rich man’s son returns home and spends some of his trust fund helping the poor man, since the poor man’s son died on his behalf. The rich man disowns his son for helping his enemy, on the grounds that he can “regain” the money “lost” to the poor man by refusing to give his son the promised inheritance. The son sues and they go to court over it. The son sues his father.

We can break it down by the three main aspects of a declamation:

1. Color: Quintilian records a declamation that is highly emotional, affective, and pathetic, making out the rich man’s son to be grief-stricken by both the loss of his friend and by the betrayal of his father. The speaker adopts the persona of a young, well-educated man whose naïve nature led him to be completely blindsided both by his ill fortune and his friend’s sacrifice; his sense of obligation to his friend led him to oppose his father’s wishes, not any lack of filial piety. He feels very guilty about what happened to his beloved friend.

2. Divisio: The speaker relies primarily on narrative description of the events that transpired, crafting a speech based more on pathos and ethos than logos. He then engages in an imaginary debate with his father about why he befriended his father’s enemy’s son. He uses allusions to philosophy as well as elegiac and epic poetry to create a distinctly literary tone.

3. Sententiae: The declamation has some great zingers, such as

   1. I’m ashamed to enumerate the stages of my calamities: pirate, gladiator trainer—and my own father (Pudet enumerare calamitatium mearum gradus: piratam, lanistam, patrem)

   2. This virtue is to be celebrated, this moderation of the mind must be taken up, to conquer anger and to also remember the human among rivalries (Haec est celebranda virtus, haec animi suspicienda moderatio, vincere iram et inter simultates quoque meminisse hominis)

   3. But that part of the charge against me, jurors, deserved not to be defended but rather praised. For I do not discover anything that natura devised more outstandingly in human affairs than friendship, anything which it devised as a greater aid against fortune than harmony (Atquin pars ista criminis, iudices, mei non defendi meruit sed laudari. Neque enim reperio, quid in rebus humanis excogitarit natura praestantius amicitia, quid concordia contra fortunam maius auxilium)

   4. I didn’t forget your mandates; fortune is lacking, resources are being taken away, the one thing which was left to me—see!—I promise my own hands to your father in place of yours. What more do you want me to do? Should I take up farm labor? I’m quite delicate, because I did not learn from fortune, and the profit of daily labor does not suffice for two people who are in need. Wretched me! If I should wish to discharge my promise, maybe I should go back to being a gladiator (Non excidere mihi tua mandata; fortuna defecit, opes auferuntur, quod unum mihi relictum est, en polliceor patri tuo vicarias manus. Quid vis porro faciam? Agrestia opera? Delicatior, quod a fortuna non didici, et cotidiani quaestus operis duobus egentibus non sufficit. Miserum me! Si exsolvere fidem voluero, fortasse mihi in ludum revertendum est.)

As you can see, the declaimer speaks in the first person, adopting the ethos (character) of the fictitious person involved in the declamation.

In this regard, declamation was a kind of playtime for the educated aristocrat, and, as Seneca notes, it was also good for the aristocrat’s actual development as an orator, so it had a practical purpose as well. Situated somewhere between history, rhetorical exercise, fable, and myth, declamation may have fizzled out fairly quickly as a cultural practice, but its legacy left a lingering impact on later intellectuals.

There were a lot of illustrious declaimers, but I think I’ll leave it there for today—we can go through Seneca’s whole cast of characters in a future essay!

Does declamation sound like fun to you? What topic would you want to declaim on? I’d love to hear from you in the comments.

As always, take care until next time.

MKA