In Chapter V, Quintilian expands on his idea of a "good man" by specifying that he must have a "steady presence of mind" (424, left column) to make his words actually mean something, and goes on to say that "without proper firmness, confidence, and courage, neither art, nor study, nor knowledge would be of the least avail, any more than weapons put into the hands of weakness and timidity" (424, left column). Believing in yourself goes a long way; I know I find myself attracted to confidence, as it seems to indicate that I can just be a follower, and not have the power of whatever they're saying depend on me- they already know they're right, with or without my support. It's easy to fall headfirst into a seductive speech, as Quintilian is already well aware.
However, Quintilian is a man of "believing what you say"; he believes one must actually possess a steady presence of mind, but what if your speech is just as effective even if you are faking it? Couldn't you trick your audience into believing you possessed all of this natural confidence, but really be a complete mess inside? This probably isn't what Quintilian had in mind when he wrote about oratory, but I did speech and debate in high school, and I competed in impromptu speaking, where you basically have to give a speech off the top of your head. To the inexperienced judge, it may have looked like I was a knowledgable, well-rehearsed orator, but in reality, I was a sweaty-palmed wreck who used the same three topics every speech. My audience didn't know that, though- does that make me a success for having tricked them, or should they feel ashamed for not seeing through the act? (Again, I'm drawn back to the role of the audience in oratory...)
This idea seems to be a given throughout the readings that we've done, but I can't help but play devil's advocate when it shows up. Are there people that exude such an air of confidence that are still successful speakers? Is this a internal quality, or must it be learned? Can it be faked? I automatically try to think of examples to disprove it, but find myself stuck. I think Quintilian hit the nail on the head by saying that ideas are powerless unless you believe in them yourself, and make us believe in them too.
I am also interested in the matter of firmness, confidence, and courage in an orator. I competed in speech and debate in high school as well, and my own experience was that most trained people can fake a degree of confidence but struggle to stand firm when challenged. In debate, I could identify other teams' weaknesses by noticing how their confidence would momentarily lapse when confronted by certain arguments. Like any mask, manufactured, surface-level confidence is hard to keep on at all times.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think it is necessary to be free of fear to be confident and courageous as a speaker. Quintilian agrees when he writes that "nor, on the other hand, should I be unwilling that he who is going to speak should rise with some concern, change color, and show a sense of the hazard which he is encountering" (424). Quintilian notes that one of the keys to maintaining confidence is to remain firm in your cause and the rightness of your actions (424). But do your actions have to be right or your cause just? I think not. You just have to BELIEVE that this is the case. Like the riverboat pilots in Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi, you will then possess "a cool, calm courage that no peril can shake" (63).
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI am interested in your point about challenging people in debate to identify their weaknesses. In the event that I did, we were never questioned on our speeches, which made it a lot easier going into each round to know that even if our audience didn't agree with us, they weren't able to speak up about it. Does that knowledge that our opposition or audience has the power to question what we say affect our mask of confidence? Or is it still the same level of fear trapped underneath the same composed mask, regardless of situation? About your assertion that we "just have to BELIEVE" that our case is correct, does that align with Quintilian's views? He seems to assert that the orator must be a good man, and that there are underlying universal morals that construct this ideal. But maybe it is just his own beliefs, and not universally held beliefs, that he holds firm to keep that confidence. Thanks for making me think!
Molly