Skip to main content

Cicero and Quintilian provide lengthy descriptions of the role of wit in Latin oratory (De Orat. 2.216-290; Institutio Oratoria 6.3). Both treat wit as a tool for persuasion, a perspective that tallies with their backgrounds and goals, but which is unusual in theoretical work on humor. Their view of wit as an instrument for delivering a serious message aligns with other genres in Latin literature: satire especially claims to mock for a purpose. The orators, however, treat wit more cautiously than the poets do, in that they express concern that wit endangers truth and decorum. Drawing on Corbeill’s argument that orators of the Late Republic used wit to define social values (1996) and Beard’s assessment of Roman humor as dangerous to its wielders (2014), I argue that the utility of wit is a central concern in rhetorical works, an idea also reflected elsewhere in Roman literature, and that the orators treat the purposes of wit as more versatile than masking abuse or causing enjoyment.

Cicero’s discussion of wit (De Orat. 2.216-290) rounds out his observations on the passions. He describes wit as an invaluable tool that the orator can employ to teach an audience not to lend undue credence to an opponent or witness (2.229-230), to win back an audience’s attention (2.236), and to introduce subtle falsehoods (2.240-1). Wit, however, is also a high-risk strategy. Its immediacy can make problems for its wielder, because it can become a threat to decorum: “it is the most difficult thing for witty and mouthy people to take account of people and circumstances and to restrain themselves from saying those things which occur to them, although they could be extremely witty if spoken” (est hominibus facetis et dicacibus difficillimum, habere hominum rationem et temporum et ea, quae occurant, cum salsissime dici possint, tenere, 2.221). For Cicero, wit is both an invaluable tool and a difficult exercise in restraint.

Quintilian treats Cicero as the premier employer of wit in Latin oratory and agrees that wit is useful for refreshing attention and introducing falsehoods (6.3.1-4). He also magnifies Cicero’s concerns about preserving the dignity of both the orator and his opponents. Quintilian characterizes wit as “usually untrue” and “never flattering” (plerumque falsum […] numquam honorificorum, 6.3.6). He fears wit, or more specifically laughter, as the “force more powerful than any I know” (vim nescio an imperiossisimam) that can control the reaction and even the body of those exposed to it (6.3.8-9). Quintilian agrees with Cicero that wit is powerful yet also likely to bring indignity and untruth.

Cicero and Quintilian provide a small but significant sample of ancient Roman thought on the purpose and uses of wit. In their treatments of the subject, I find evidence that the idea of wit as a complicated tool was prevalent in ancient Roman literature. Although their ideas have the most direct relevance to oratory, they also illuminate the tension between effective persuasion and deceptive rhetoric in other genres.