De Oratore by Cicero – Book 1 – Conversation on Oratory

In addition to being a lawyer, politician and philosopher, Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero) was also a preeminent Roman orator. Drawing on the teaching of Greek rhetoric and the craft of oration in Roman times, he composed De Oratore to highlight the principles he believed were at play whenever someone planned to speak on an important topic.

While political speeches and legal proceedings were at the forefront of public speaking during this time, the concepts presented here are valuable in the drafting of any nonfiction narrative. Written in 55 BC, and comprised of three books, De Oratore is a dialogue that is set in 91 BC.

Cicero writes about a dialogue, reported to him by Cotta, among a group of excellent political men and orators, who came together to discuss the crisis and general decline of politics. They met in the garden of Lucius Licinius Crassus’ villa in Tusculum.

Lucius Licinius CrassusQuintus Mucius Scaevola
Marcus Antonius OratorGaius Aurelius CottaPublius Sulpicius Rufus

Lucius Licinius Crassus offers the following insights:

One thing there will certainly be, which those who speak well will exhibit as their own; a graceful and elegant style, distinguished by a peculiar artifice and polish. But this kind of diction, if there be not matter beneath it clear and intelligible to the speaker, must either amount to nothing, or be received with ridicule by all who hear it.

For who is ignorant that the highest power of an orator consists in exciting the minds of men to anger, or to hatred, or to grief, or in recalling them from these more violent emotions to gentleness and compassion? which power will never be able to effect its object by eloquence, unless in him who has obtained a thorough insight into the nature of mankind, and all the passions of humanity, and those causes by which our minds are either impelled or restrained.

Despite the benefit of delivering a speech with elegance and polish, Crassus notes that a speaker’s words will fall on deaf ears should we not view their narrative as authentic and of substance. He also speaks to the power of an orator to stir the emotions of an audience, either toward assuming a negative mindset, or in soothing pre-existing negativity. But eloquence alone can not cause this movement, as the speaker must also understand humankind’s very nature, and how we are influenced.

While this approach is common in politics, and many marketing campaigns, whereby the intent is to play off of one’s emotions instead of intellect, it is nonetheless important to think about what is important to the audience, and why they care about the story that you’re telling them. That said, the key objective should be for them to understand your viewpoint. Their emotions may follow – positively or negatively – but manipulating their emotions should never be the aim when telling a personal story.

Antonius soon after said,

But in an orator, the acuteness of the logicians, the wisdom of the philosophers, the language almost of poetry, the memory of lawyers, the voice of tragedians, the gesture almost of the best actors, is required. Nothing therefore is more rarely found among mankind than a consummate orator; for qualifications which professors of other arts are commended for acquiring in a moderate degree, each in his respective pursuit, will not be praised in the orator, unless they are all combined in him in the highest possible excellence.”

Crafting a narrative that is logical, which offers wisdom and insight, that shows the importance of proper word choice, and is delivered from memory, using vocal variation and appropriate body movement is the essence of oratory according to Antonius. That unique skill set separates those who merely know their subject well, even if they are subject matter experts, from those who know how to properly deliver a speech.

I would agree that the combination of these skills will maximize a story’s impact, and that acquiring such a diverse set of talents is rather difficult for most of us, but as with any profession, it’s a matter of recognizing the challenge and then applying the requisite time and energy to achieving that level of proficiency. Most talented speakers will tell you how bad they were at the beginning of their careers, and how long it took them to learn the craft of writing and presenting a memorable talk.

and Crassus responded,

That since all the business and art of an orator is divided into five parts, he ought first to find out what he should say; next, to dispose and arrange his matter, not only in a certain order, but with a sort of power and judgment; then to clothe and deck his thoughts with language; then to secure them in his memory; and lastly, to deliver them with dignity and grace.

Crassus offers an initial insight into the Five Canons of Rhetoric;

  • Invention (clearing defining the main idea, perspective or position)
  • Arrangement (how the story is organized to provide maximum impact)
  • Style (the language used to present each of the narrative components)
  • Memory (speaker’s ability to memorized / embody the essence of the message)
  • Delivery (which includes vocal variation, facial expression and body movements)

[De Oratore excerpts from Delphi Complete Works of Cicero, Translated by J. S. Watson]

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact – All rights reserved

De Oratore by Cicero – Book 1 – The Essence of Oratory

In addition to being a lawyer, politician and philosopher, Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero) was also a preeminent Roman orator. Drawing on the teaching of Greek rhetoric and the craft of oration in Roman times, he composed De Oratore to highlight the principles he believed were at play whenever someone planned to speak on an important topic.

While political speeches and legal proceedings were at the forefront of public speaking during this time, the concepts presented here are valuable in the drafting of any nonfiction narrative. Written in 55 BC, and comprised of three books, De Oratore is a dialogue that is set in 91 BC.

Cicero wrote De Oratore to describe the ideal orator and imagine him as a moral guide of the state. He did not intend the dialogue as merely a treatise on rhetoric, but went beyond mere technique, to make several references to philosophical principles.

For who can suppose that, amid the greatest multitude of students, the utmost abundance of masters, the most eminent geniuses among men, the infinite variety of causes, the most ample rewards offered to eloquence, there is any other reason to be found for the small number of orators than the incredible magnitude and difficulty of the art?

Cicero recognized the challenges inherent in mastering a discipline, especially those of a legal, scientific, or philosophical nature, but he considered the ability to speak of these subjects in public, and to do so in a way that brought an audience toward the speaker’s way of thinking, to be the most difficult of all.

I would offer that little has changed in the two plus millennium that’s passed since, with few individuals in modern times considered to be great orators. In my view, however, that notion misses the point of storytelling which comes from the heart and need not reach the pinnacle of public speaking expertise. And in my experience, the vast majority of people, with effort, strategy, and practice, can become impactful public speakers.

A knowledge of a vast number of things is necessary, without, which volubility of words is empty and ridiculous; speech itself is to be formed, not merely by choice, but by careful construction of words; and all the emotions of the mind, which nature has given to man, must be intimately known; for all the force and art of speaking must be employed in allaying or exciting the feelings of those who listen.

I couldn’t agree more regarding the careful construction of words, as word choice has a dramatic effect on the impact that a story will have on an audience. Too often our first draft will rely on the easy words and expressions familiar to us, but may not accurately tell the intended story. This is where rewriting becomes the most important phase of writing. Using a thesaurus provides alternate words that may be closer to the truth of your story.

The second part of the equation, Cicero’s reference to understanding the emotional side of storytelling, is another vital component of narrative construction. The story is, to some extent, about how you feel, but equally important is how the listener will react to what you’re saying. Ideally they will hear your words and feel your emotions.

When working with speakers I ask them to annotate their manuscript by identifying the emotion present at each point in the talk. When it’s time to rehearse, make sure the tone of your voice (as well as body movements and facial expressions) matches the tone of your narrative.

In my opinion, indeed, no man can be an orator possessed of every praiseworthy accomplishment, unless he has attained the knowledge of everything important, and of all liberal arts, for his language must be ornate and copious from knowledge, since, unless there be beneath the surface matter understood and felt by the speaker, oratory becomes an empty and almost puerile flow of words.

Besides grammar and emotions, Cicero offers his view that oratory requires knowledge of everything important, including all liberal arts. The terms thought leader and subject matter expert are relevant when a talk addresses themes of society, history, politics or science. For an audience to buy into your viewpoint, they must feel a sense of subject mastery. But when telling a story based on personal experience, your expertise relates to the sequence of events alongside your inner reflections, beliefs, opinions and decisions.

But his point about delving beneath the surface is spot on in either case and speaks to the level of honesty and vulnerability that you’re willing to embrace when telling your story.

[De Oratore excerpts from Delphi Complete Works of Cicero, Translated by J. S. Watson]

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact – All rights reserved

Exploring the Mehrabian Myth

Every profession as its own set of rules, instructions and standards. As you might expect, these guidelines will vary, sometimes widely, as every individual has their own take on what works best, but in general, they adhere to generally accepted guidelines. On occasion, however, a convention will appear that is egregious false, yet becomes something of a meme and is widely disseminated.

The notion that words don’t matter, or more accurately, that they matter very little when compared to our facial expressions, or the sound of our voice, constitutes one such myth. As often happens, the myth was derived from scientific research, but simply misinterpreted, or misstated, and the resulting meme that is spread far and wide bares little resemblance to the intent of the original research publication. In short, a mangled version of the truth, somehow becomes the truth.

Sometimes this myth is referred to as the 7%-38%-55% Rule, while in other situations it’s offered up as a claim that states “93% of all communication is non-verbal”. In either case it’s 100% bullshit, but let’s dive into the numbers, and the source of the information which became the myth.

We’ll time travel back to 1967, when Dr. Albert Mehrabian, Professor of Psychology at UCLA, conducted a study that examined how people reacted when they heard words that did not match the tone of the speakers voice, like saying, “Of course I love you honey.”, but in a sarcastic tone that clearly indicated you were mad. In these cases, when the tone was out of alignment with the words, the tone of voice was perceived to be more powerful.

Dr. Albert MehrabianIn a 2nd study, Dr. Mehrabian compared vocal elements with a speaker’s facial expressions, and found that facial elements were more powerful than vocal elements. Face trumps Tone. By combining these studies he came up with the following summary:

  • 55% is what the audience sees – it’s your body language
  • 38% is what the audience hears – the tone of your voice
  • 7% is what you actually say – the words within your talk

To get a visual synopsis of the issue, take a moment to watch this video from CreativityWorks.

“The non-verbal elements are particularly important for communicating feelings and attitude, especially when they are incongruent: if words and body language disagree, one tends to believe the body language.”
– Dr. Albert Mehrabian

In 2009 BBC reporter Tim Harford asked Dr. Mehrabian
if 93% of communication was non-verbal:

“Absolutely not, and whenever I hear that misquote or misrepresentation of my findings I cringe because it should be so obvious to anybody who would use any amount of common sense that that’s not the correct statement.”

The point being, his studies were never intended to examine the relative importance of words, tone or expressions within the context of our conversations, much less public speaking and storytelling from the stage, yet the myth was created and continues to thrive like a classic urban legend.

“There’s just no question that you cannot extrapolate my findings to communication in general.” – Dr. Albert Mehrabian

You can think about it this way. If you really think that 97% of communication is non-verbal, then try describing the movie you just saw to your best friend – without using any words. Charades anyone?

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact – All rights reserved