How to Tell a Joke

An Ancient Guide to the Art of Humor

Marcus Tullius Cicero

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780691211077
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Ancient & Classical Philosophy

Timeless advice about how to use humor to win over any audience Can jokes win a hostile room, a hopeless argument, or even an election? You bet they can, according to Cicero, and he knew what he was talking about. One of Rome's greatest politicians, speakers, and lawyers, Cicero was also reputedly one of antiquity's funniest people. After he was elected commander-in-chief and head of state, his enemies even started calling him "the stand-up Consul." How to Tell a Joke provides a lively new translation of Cicero's essential writing on humor alongside that of the later Roman orator and educator Quintilian. The result is a timeless practical guide to how a well-timed joke can win over any audience.As powerful as jokes can be, they are also hugely risky. The line between a witty joke and an offensive one isn't always clear. Cross it and you'll look like a clown, or worse. Here, Cicero and Quintilian explore every aspect of telling jokes—while avoiding costly mistakes. Presenting the sections on humor in Cicero's On the Ideal Orator and Quintilian's The Education of the Orator, complete with an enlightening introduction and the original Latin on facing pages, How to Tell a Joke examines the risks and rewards of humor and analyzes basic types that readers can use to write their own jokes.Filled with insight, wit, and examples, including more than a few lawyer jokes, How to Tell a Joke will appeal to anyone interested in humor or the art of public speaking.

HOW TO TELL A JOKE

Cicero, On the Ideal Orator, Book 2.216–290

“Humor Us, Caesar—Explain Jokes!” Caesar Takes a Stab [216–234]

ANTONY

[216b] … Humor and joking, though, is fun and often wicked effective. Every other aspect [of public speaking] might be teachable by rules, but humor is obviously something you’re born with and rules can’t do anything for it.

Caesar, in my view you’re far better than others at this, so you can easily back me up that joking either (1) isn’t a teachable skill or (2), if it is, then you’re the best person to teach it to us.

CAESAR

[217] Actually, I think a decent funnyman can discuss anything with greater wit than wit itself. Let me explain. I once saw these Greek books titled On Humor and got excited, thinking I’d learn something from them. What I found, though, was lots of Greek quips and jokes—which makes sense, since the people of Sicily, Rhodes, Byzantium, and above all, Athens, are the leaders in this area.¹⁶ But they were so ridiculous when they tried to schematize, systematize, and teach the “rules” behind them that the only thing I could laugh at was how ridiculous they were! [218] And that’s why—to me at least—it seems impossible to teach a course in the topic you want.

The thing is, jokes actually come in two forms. The first kind permeate an entire speech, while the other come fast and razor-sharp. The ancients called the first kind “shtick” and the second “a sick burn.” Both have funny names—which makes sense, since the whole business of making people laugh is (winking) “funny” stuff.¹⁷

[219] That said, Antony, you’re right. I’ve often seen humor accomplish a great deal at trial. But you don’t need rules for that first category of ongoing banter [i.e., shtick], because people are shaped by their genetics, and it’s that—plus some help from their facial expressions and voices and manner of speech itself—which makes them funny impressionists or storytellers. And since that’s true, then in the second category [i.e., sick burns], too, where a zinger has to get fired off and hit its target before anyone could seemingly even think of it—well, how could there be rules?

[220] I mean, rules couldn’t have helped my brother Barker¹⁸ here when Philip asked him, “What are you howling for?” and he shot back,

“I see a thief!”

And what could rules have done for Crassus anywhere in that speech he gave in probate court against Scaevola or in the one defending Gaius Plancus against Brutus? Really, Antony, everyone thinks the honor you pay me should go to Crassus, because he’s pretty much the only one you’ll find who excels at both kinds of wit—that is, in the first category of keeping up the talk and in the second category of snappy comebacks.

[221] I mean, his entire speech defending Curius against Scaevola was bursting with good-natured, category-1 ribbing. It didn’t have those category-2 zingers because he wanted to spare his opponent’s dignity—and in doing that, he kept his own.

And that is the hardest thing for quick-witted people to do: to take stock of the people, the circumstances, and to hold back the quips that come to mind even when it would be totally hilarious to say them. Accordingly (and this is pretty funny), some jokers twist these [222] lines of Ennius—

♫“When his mouth’s on fire, it’s easier for a wise man to suppress the flames than a good remark (bona dicta).”♫

—to say:

♫“When his mouth’s on fire, it’s easier for a wiseass to suppress the flames than a good wisecrack (bona dicta).”♫

They claim the “good” or “helpful” part of Ennius’s dicta obviously has to mean “funny” because dicta (“remark”) already means “wisecrack” all by itself!

But as much as Crassus kept away from those in dealing with Scaevola and instead made light of the trial and their disagreement with the other kind—the one that doesn’t entail roasting anyone—when it came to Marcus Brutus, who he hated and thought deserved abuse, he unloaded with both kinds. [223] He went crazy on the spa Brutus had recently sold off and the inheritance he’d burned through! And those zingers!—such as when Brutus said, “I don’t see what I’m up here sweating for,” and he snapped back,

“No surprise there: you did just get out of the spa.…”

There were countless ones like that, but the continuous banter was just as funny. I mean, Brutus called in a couple readers to quote from a pair of policy speeches Crassus had given to different audiences, and then pointed out sections where Crassus had allegedly flip-flopped. And that’s when our friend Crassus here asked (cracking up)—it was totally hilarious—three people to come read bits from the three books of the dialogue On Civil Law that Brutus’s dad had written. Let me quote Crassus’s rebuttal.

CAESAR QUOTES FROM CRASSUS’S REBUTTAL

[Caesar now quotes extracts from Crassus’s rebuttal. The first three extracts begin with an inset quotation from Brutus’s father’s book, followed by Crassus’s commentary.]

[224] First came book one:

“My son Marcus and I once found ourselves at our villa in Privernum …”

Brutus! Your father’s going on record that he left you an estate in Privernum.

Then came book two:

“My son Marcus and I were at our villa in Alba …”

This guy’s clearly a genius, one of the smartest in the country! He knew (glancing at Brutus) this black hole. He was worried that once Brutus didn’t have anything, people would assume he hadn’t been left anything.

Then came book three, which is the last one he wrote (I heard Scaevola say there are three authentic books by Brutus):

“My son Marcus and I found ourselves holed up at our villa in Tivoli …”

Brutus, where are these estates your father left you? The bequest is recorded right here in this published treatise! If he didn’t think you were alr...