1
Thesis
How to Persuade an Audience - The Continuing Search for a Perfect Orator; An Analysis of Ancient and Modern War Speeches.
Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Why use Cicero’s De Oratore?
i. Why use Cicero rather than modern speech analysis? 4
ii. Why use Cicero’s De Oratore rather than the more basic handbooks or the later
works of Quintilian? 10
iii. Why not take a purely philosophical approach to the morality of orators? 13 3. Cicero’s De Oratore applied to Cicero’s own speech, the 2ndPhilippic. 18
4. Donald Trump’s AIPAC speech ; an analysis using Cicero 33 5. Appendix 50
2
1. Introduction
In this thesis I aim to use Cicero’s criteria, within the De Oratore, to analyse modern speeches and
the characteristics displayed by statesmen within those speeches. I hope to demonstrate the usefulness of ancient models, the best being Cicero, thereby showing that in essence nothing has really changed in the arts of persuasion. By using Cicero’s own practical and theoretical
framework for the perfect orator as well as his own war speeches, I wish to examine what techniques a speaker employs and what attributes they draw on when trying to convince a nation to make a tough decision. Military intervention will be the primary focus as it provides a link through the ages. Cicero himself advocates war in two sets of speeches - the Philippic and the In Catilinam.
For my modern example, I will use Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech. Although I will refer specifically to this contemporary speech, which is extremely relevant to modern international politics, I aim to show that Cicero’s approach to oratory is applicable to all great speeches which seek to persuade their audience. Cicero’s morality and philosophy makes his analysis unique yet applicable to modern speeches. I wish to explore parallels in techniques, the role of philosophy within rhetoric, and the heavy reliance on ethos and pathos, rather than the logos argumentation in both Cicero’s and modern speeches.
Here is a small amount of biographical information about the main figure studied. Marcus Tullius Cicero was born in 106BCE in Aprinum, a town in the south-east of Italy, approximately seventy miles from Rome. His family were a part of the wealthy elite in Aprinum. Like most sons of prominent families, Cicero was exposed to Roman political life from an early age, with visits to the forum, experiencing trials and even observing discussions in the senate.1 In an aim to
elevate himself and his brother, Quintus, Cicero was brought into contact with the two most prominent orators and politicians of the day, Crassus and Antonius. Both orators greatly shaped Cicero’s development and resultant career success. They are the main speakers within Cicero’s
De Oratore, which is a testament to their influence over Cicero. On the side of philosophy, Cicero
came into contact with Philo and Phaedrus when he was eighteen. As a result of the
3
philosopher’s voluntary exile from Athens to Rome, Cicero’s intellectual education was shaped by a scholar from the Academy and the head of the School of Epicurus.2 Cicero’s education in
Greek philosophy aimed to realise his envisaged ‘career as an advocate, politicians and orator.’3
After the death of Crassus, in 91BCE, Cicero attached himself to the legal expert Scaevola, learning the technical practices of the law courts through direct experience.4 Cicero’s first case
was in 81BCE and he soon earned a reputation for impressively persuasive oratory. However, feeling his education was still incomplete, Cicero went on a grand tour of Greece.
On returning to Rome, Cicero embarked on a steady rise to power. Cicero’s career was marginally hampered by his ancestor’s failure to reach senatorial rank but none the less he progressed through the orders from 75BCE onwards. By 63BCE he had gained the highest rank of consul. During this consulship, Cicero fought against the Cataline conspiracy, with famous speeches that condemned and exposed the traitors, defending the republic. Cicero was heavily involved in politics until his death, as an outspoken and seemingly incorruptible opposition to Caesar and Marc Anthony, and a stout defender of the republic.
Cicero represents the oratory tradition; he was the best orator of his time. A large amount of his work has survived and he has exerted a great influence over the history of oration. Cicero’s prestige is part of the appeal of using his work, but more importantly his position made it possible for him to create a theoretical work, an all-encompassing discussion of oratory.
Examining Cicero’s own rhetorical style, alongside his ideal orator, is useful as I attempt to prove that modern persuasive techniques used in national campaigns and war speeches, in both the UK and USA, are not dramatically more transparent than Cicero’s own war speeches.
The structure of the textual analysis will be split into two parts. Firstly, there will be an examination of a Ciceronian war speech using De Oratore to identify techniques, style and
content. The speech is the Second Philippic, which was never performed. Its length, quality and
anticipation of crowd reactions make it the perfect speech to assess using Cicero’s dialogue. The last section will consist of a close analysis’ of Donald Trump’s speech with some comparisons to
2 Peter L. Schmidt ‘Cicero's Place in Roman Philosophy: A Study of His Prefaces’ The Classical Journal Vol. 74, No. 2 (Dec., 1978 - Jan., 1979), p. 116
3 Powell (Wiley 2007) p.335
4 Scaevola also features in De Oratore, although he appears as a student when compared with the impressive Crassus or Antonius.
4
the Second and Eighth Philippic and the FirstCatilinarian, whilst always referring to the central
text De Oratore.
There are three additional issues that must be addressed before the close textual analysis. Firstly, why is it relevant to use the work of Cicero rather than modern speech analysis? Why use ancient rhetoric theory to judge modern speeches and orators? The second question is why use Cicero’s
De Oratore rather than the more basic handbooks or the later works of Quintilian? Thirdly why
not take a purely philosophical approach to morality within the speeches, using the works of Aristotle or Plato to criticise the art of persuasion?
1. Why use Cicero
i. Why is it relevant to use the work of Cicero rather than modern speech analysis? Why use ancient rhetoric theory to judge modern speeches and orators?
The De Oratore seeks to describe the perfect orator and by discussing this unattainable perfection,
the greatly knowledgeable leader who can argue any point on either side, move the audience in any direction he pleases and be honourable in both subject and delivery, Cicero highlights the components of a great speech and the character of a great speaker. It is interesting to see how wide the scope of Cicero’s orator is. The ideal orator is the master of language and politics.5 By
using ancient rhetorical theory, we can see that modern speeches have not progressed and changed in techniques. Politicians rarely rely on logos alone, logical arguments, in order to persuade. Cicero accurately identified ethos and pathos as the most important tools at the disposal of the orator. Just as in modern politics Cicero asks ‘when rules and reason are proved insufficient, where does legitimacy lie? In the emotional responses of the republics citizens’.6
The lack of expertise in the modern audiences on the issue of war means that republican citizens here can be extended to any citizen of a democracy.
5 Cic.De or 3.64
6 Joy Connolly, Rhetoric and Political Thought in Ancient Rome, Princeton and Oxford ( Princeton University Press 2007) p.225
5
Cicero gives us an approach to assessing modern speeches based on the emotions of the
audience, the philosophy of the speaker as well as the strengths of arguments within the speech, rather than miss an element as some modern commentators do. To give an example, journalists analysing the speeches of Donald Trump focus mainly on Trump as a potential candidate rather than the philosophy expressed in his speech. Likewise, when judging the British debate over intervention in the Syria or Iraq wars, the coverage lacked a focus on the tradition the speakers came from. Cicero’s work gives us the tools to make a comprehensive analysis of the speakers’ use of knowledge, history and philosophy in persuasion. He also shows the combined effects of style, delivery, arrangement and, most importantly, emotions. The dialogue offers an opportunity to use Cicero’s high standards to judge modern speeches against and to identify the similarities in the speakers’ approaches. There are clear successes in the modern speeches that reflect Cicero’s own instruction and there are also failures, like the ones mentioned by Crassus and Antonius, within the work.
Cicero’s description of the hypothetical ideal orator illustrates the applied theory and where this applies in modern war speeches. Crassus, Cicero’s most prominent interlocutor, is describing the height of rhetoric. What may at first glance appear to be short comings of the modern speeches, we can put down to the fact that De Oratore describes the ideal. This may be evidence of the high
aspirations of Cicero or the weaknesses of the modern speeches, not evidence to suggest
Cicero’s work is no longer relevant. In fact, the work provides the most appropriate questions to ask, when reading and watching Donald Trump and other modern orators. ‘Who is it, then, who sends shivers down your spine? At whom do they cheer? Whom do they consider, if I may use the expression, a god among men?’ 7
Cicero’s work accurately depicts the power of oratory, identifying the techniques, structure, style and emotional appeals. Rather than using modern rhetorical theory, using Cicero’s work focuses on how the orator controls the audiences’ emotions. As Connolly says, De Oratores’ ‘vehement
purpose is to describe the orator who is best capable of exploiting the power of the performance and thereby transforms the scattered selves of his listeners into a unified collective.’8 Part of this
study must assess how successful the modern speeches are in achieving this idealistic goal. Connolly helpfully introduces the philosophical element of the work, with a major focus on
7 Cic.De or 3.53 8 Connolly (2007) p.223
6
republican identity and ideas of the self. Particularly in recent fragmented politics, with the rise of strong right wing and left wing elements, the theme of unification through eloquence is
extremely relevant and Cicero’s ideas resonate through the centuries.
Within De Oratore, Crassus extols the excellence of orators and their task, ‘so regal, so generous ,
so magnanimous, as lending aid to those in distress, raising up the afflicted, offering people safety, freeing them from dangers’.9 Cicero’s framework is applicable, as it can trace the
development of techniques and morality in rhetoric. As well as practical skills on the contested art of speech, De Oratore instructs readers on lifestyle, covering a huge range of topics. It is the
ideal orator’s ‘duty to speak about good and evil, the things to be pursued and avoided, honourable and base, expedient and inexpedient, about virtue, justice, self-control, prudence, greatness of spirit, generosity, dutifulness, friendship, moral duty, loyalty’.10 It is evident that the
work provides us with the tools to create and judge a speech.
Cicero introduces the reader to the great power and responsibility of eloquence, something that cannot and should not be overlooked. War speeches have serious implications. The
consequences are as monumental now as they were to the Romans. In many ways, the modern situation is not fundamentally different from that of Cicero’s time. There remains a male dominated, competitive political arena where speech and persuasion is essential for success. Although the scale of the audience and speed you can scrutinise orators has greatly increased, the aim and challenges of the speeches are unchanged. Like todays speakers, Cicero had to deal with multiple audiences, with various levels of education, power and sympathy. He was aware that his manuscripts would reach a wider audience, once edited and circulated by himself. Although the immediacy of criticism in modern speeches changes the atmosphere, it is unsurprising that war speeches still heavily rely on affecting the emotions of the audience, not just relying on dry rationale arguments to persuade them. Where Cicero will be particularly useful is in
understanding the success of Donald Trump’s speeches. Although Trump appear to break with American tradition the successful techniques he relies on are found in De Oratore. For this reason
Cicero’s work is still very relevant to today’s onscreen speeches.
9 Cic.De or 1.32 10 Ibid.2.67
7
Cicero’s interlocutors, as literary reflections of prominent historical orators, may seem specific to the historical memory of Rome, yet the positive characteristics described are repeatedly used in modern speeches. Rather than alienate modern readers, the wealth of examples greatly benefits analysis. The De Oratore is able to measure any speech with anecdotal evidence and specific
details about the components of speeches. As a result of Cicero’s framework we are able to judge the character the orator wishes to create within the speech, its overall impact, as well as
individual techniques. Cicero states that ‘the true orator ought to have examined and heard and read and discussed and thoroughly treated all aspects of human life.’11 Modern speeches, with the
benefit of this knowledge through technology, should be even closer to this ideal. Cicero’s praise for the ideal orator in society is appropriate to the task of assessing modern speeches.
The power of speeches should not be underestimated and Cicero correctly places the orator at the head of the community, where, ideologically, they have remained in the two thousand years that separate our orators.12 For Cicero the history of eloquence is the foundation of all
civilisations, it ‘reigned supreme in every free nation and especially in quiet and peaceful communities.’13 The irony, of course, is that the speeches that have been most effective in
demonstrating the brilliance which Cicero describes, have advocated war rather than peace. Within the dialogue Cicero gives examples of ‘regal’, ‘generous’ and brilliant orators.14 Modern
speakers should be measured by this high standard, similarities or failures will tell us much about how persuasion has changed or remained the same. The defensive use of eloquence is balanced with its active power, arming the speaker with the ability not only to ‘shield yourself’ but to ‘challenge the wicked or take revenge when provoked’.15
Modern war speeches are still concerned with ‘offering people safety’ and ‘freeing them from danger’, just as Crassus mentions. In the comfort of a stable western democracy, the public can often be unaware of the magnitude of the decisions discussed. Today’s politicians are ridiculed and mistrusted, perhaps justifiably. The same criticisms of poor oratory practices can be found in Cicero and Cicero’s tone guides us through issues of the upmost importance. Rather than
11 Cic.De or 3.54
12 In practice, obviously, barbarism and violence still continues to dominate many societies and defines much of world history.
13 Cic.De or 1.30 14 Ibid.1.32 15 Ibid.
8
disagreeing with the content of a war speech, De Oratore gives us the criteria with which to
understand and examine the practical application of persuasive techniques. Cicero says he felt a duty to write the work as a result of the ‘mass of troubles and incredibly turbulent storms’.16 In a
more modest way, the same duty to analyses speeches of today falls on the shoulders of the public, especially when deciding on foreign policy. This sense of duty and responsibility is something gained by the epic writing of Cicero, that could be lost in the less morally conscious rhetorical analysis of the modern day. As Cicero grandly puts it, ‘I assert that the leadership and wisdom of the perfect orator provide the chief basis, not only for his own dignity, but also for the safety of countless individuals and of the State at large’.17
Modern analysis is far from superficial but Cicero’s work gives full criteria in assessing why speeches are powerful and speakers successful. The best analyses of modern war speeches always look at the history of rhetoric. The brilliant analysis of George Bush’s speech by Graham,
Keenan and Dowd, firmly puts Bush’s speech, which introduced the term ‘war on terror’, within its wider context. In their case they found a comparison with Pope Urban’s crusade speech invaluable. They also mention the Aristotelian tradition of persuasion. The analysis is highly complex by modern terminology of the war speeches throughout the millennium. They write that the war speech contains ‘a legitimating power source external to the orator; the history (mythologically, world-historically, or otherwise conceived) of the social system in which the text is located; an evil and aberrant Other; and a unifying construct (religious, racial, political,
philosophical, or nationalistic)’.18 Cicero himself phrases the same ideas with eloquence and
focuses on the individual skills of the orator which is my aim in this inquiry.
Another added advantage of assessing a modern speech with Cicero, is the ability to apply his ideas around delivery to video footage of Trumps’ speech. We have the opportunity to properly assess Cicero’s comments about delivery because we are able to watch and re-watch the speech indefinitely. Cicero says ‘surely I don’t have to add anything about delivery?’ It is so important to the orator. The importance of persuading by ‘movement of body, by gesture, by facial expression and by inflecting and varying the voice’ is calculable when watching Trump.19
16 Cic.De or 1.2 17 Ibid.1.34
18 Phil Graham, Thomas Keenan and Anne Maree Dowd, ‘A call to arms at the end of history: a discourse–historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror’, (2004 SAGE Publications) Vol 15(2–3)p.p199–221
9
Using Cicero gives us the opportunity of judging his own speeches by his own high standards and cross referencing his strategy with the modern speeches. This three pronged approach, analysing Cicero’s own speeches using his own analysis, applying De Oratore to modern speeches
and comparing his speeches with modern speeches, allows us to assess Cicero’s practical techniques as well as his theoretical work. In some places the high style and intellectual tone of
De Oratore contrasts greatly with attacks he makes against his opponents in his own speeches. By
10
ii. Why use Cicero’s De Oratore rather than the more basic handbooks or the later works
of Quintilian?
The arguments for using Cicero, rather than other ancient rhetorical specialists, are found within the ancient texts themselves. De Oratore shows the complexity of Cicero’s view of eloquence as
the apex of civilised culture, based on the great volume of knowledge that the ideal orator possesses. Unlike the handbooks, which focus on technique alone, Cicero’s dialogue allows for the nuances needed to judge modern day speeches. One of these handbooks is attributed to Cicero himself early in his career but he disregards the work as a youthful exercise.20 The finest
quality of the De Oratore is that in the world of the dialogue ‘rhetoric’s essence cannot find
truthful textual representation; here true rhetoric is not written, it is overheard.’21 Unlike Cicero’s
earlier work and other rhetorical guides, the essence of oratory is experienced in a way that can be applied to any speech.
Both Antonius and Crassus, within this fictitious dialogue, successfully convince their audience of the limitations of the handbooks and in turn easily convince the reader that such a wide and complex subject, at its height, cannot be boiled down to formulae. In contrast to other ancient writers, Cicero had the advantage of living and thriving at the height of the republic. Authors, such as Quintilian, pay homage to Cicero. The historical context of the writing gives it added value. Before the fall of the Republic, as a result of the victories of Octavian and at the height of civil war tensions, the necessity of eloquence was pressing and the challenges to the orator were extreme. Cicero purports that his brother, Quintus, urged him to write the work. From the prologue the urgency of the work is clear. Cicero looks nostalgically to the earlier days of the state when one could practice ‘political activity without peril’ and had the time for ‘leisure with dignity’.22 The turbulent nature of Cicero’s lifetime significantly contrasts with the historical
setting of his dialogue. The fast paced, cut-throat, modern political world seems to reproduce the original conditions which Cicero’s addressed. For this reason the work retains power and
relevance today, in sharp contrast with the handbooks.
20De Invention was published in 88 BCE, when Cicero was just nineteen.
21 Dugan John, Making a New Man, Ciceronian Self Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works (Oxford University Press 2005)p.83 22 Cic.De or 1.1
11
Antonius’ comments about oratory show that Cicero intends to go much deeper in his work than just exploring rhetoric as an art. Unlike Cicero’s De Oratore, instruction ‘concerning the education
of the youth, concerning justice, endurance, self-control, and moderation in all things, and everything else that is essential for the existence or the sound moral condition of a community, were not discussed anywhere at all in the simplistic handbooks of the rhetoricians.’23 When
Cicero turns to practical approaches, through examples from the time in which the dialogue is set, the handbooks appear equality limited. ‘I handled the whole case (Norbanus’ defence) on the basis of these two elements of a speech, the one that recommends and the one that excites, neither of which is given adequate treatment in the rules of the handbooks.’24 Antonius states
that his defence of Norbanus relied heavily on his recommendations and his ability to excite and inspire emotions in his audience. These are two skills that are lacking in the traditional rhetorical handbooks but feature heavily in De Oratore, in Trump’s speech and in Cicero’s own war
speeches.
Another example of Cicero’s criticism of the handbooks comes in book three. The people who set forth rhetorical systems ‘are utterly ridiculous, writing about the categories of lawsuits, about prologues and about narrations. The real power of eloquence is so enormous that its scope includes the origin, essence, and transformations of everything’.25 As a result of this scope,
Cicero own work seems essential and well above the theoretical level of the rigid handbooks. Cicero reiterates this directly to his brother Quintus, the proposed audience of De Oratore. ‘Of
course, dearest brother of mine, I am certainly not going to bother you now and try to educate you with one of those hand books of rhetoric that you think so clumsy.’26 Certainly these
handbooks, of which enough remain, are not up to the task of analysing the war speeches of today. The constraints of the handbooks have been identified and for these reasons they would not be useful for our inquiry.
The major reason for not choosing the later work of Quintillain is expressed by Quintillain himself. Quintilian says of Cicero, ‘his own contemporaries spoke of his “sovereignty” in the
23Cic De or. 1.85. In 3.121 a similar criticism is phrased. After describing the variety of discourse needed for speeches Crassus concludes that ‘this is not a task for a few trivial handbooks as those think who have written on the theory of speaking’.
24 Ibid.2.201 25 Ibid.3.76 26 Ibid.2.10
12
courts, and that for posterity the name of Cicero has come to be regarded not as the name of a man, but the name of eloquence itself’. 27 Quintilian’s work surpasses Cicero as a practical guide,
filling twelve books with rhetorical lore, yet it is the lack of philosophical scope which makes him less applicable to modern speeches. Quintillion owed his career to Cicero since the application of Cicero’s model of oratory, was favoured by the emperor Vespasian as opposed to the Asiatic style Nero had preferred. Unlike, Cicero, however, Quintilian more actively attacked the use of ‘swollen styles and impractical conventions’ in his teaching and his work appears dry in
comparison to Cicero’s unique dialectics.
Kennedy summaries Quintilian’s work with two criticisms, firstly, ‘he is not as precise as we would wish in his earlier views of rhetoric, for he was more a teacher than a scholar’. There are echoes of Cicero’s own voice in this view. De Oratore advocates a balance between practical skills
and an extensive theoretical knowledge. 28 Quintilian is lacking in the latter category. Secondly,
‘he flattered the emperor, shut his eyes to abuses of power, and tolerated the activities of
informers’.29 It is important to put Quintilian’s moral and political outlook in perspective. Unlike
Cicero, Quintilian’s freedom of expression was very limited. The true morality of any ancient writer should always be explored, for it may be impossible to truly access their inner thoughts through their surviving work, regardless his work shows signs of imperial limitations absent from Cicero’s. Cicero, we interpret from his own work, truly believed in the republic and had the freedom to defend it. He believed in the power of oration for the good of all society.30 This
honesty, however artificial, makes his work applicable to the modern speeches whereas Quintilian is limited by a lack of meritocracy in oratory. The major disadvantage of using Quintilian is that, although his aim was similar to Cicero in applying oratory to public life, he puts so less emphasis on philosophy, a component of De Oratore which is essential to assessing
speeches, especially war speeches.
27 Quintilian Institutiones Oratoriae 10. 1.111-112 - May James M, Trials of Character, Chapel Hill and London (The University of North Carolina Press 1988) p. 162
28 Cic. De or 1.18- Cicero maintains that ‘unless the orator has firmly grasped the underlying subject matter, his speech will remain an utterly empty, yes, almost childish verbal exercise’ 1.18
29 Kennedy George A, A New history of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton, New Jersey (Princeton University Press 1994)p. 181
30 Cic De or 1. 214. One of the concerns other interlopers have with Crassus’ was ‘if we follow his opinion, even the helm of the state is handed over to the orator’ Antonius limits the role of the orator as Crassus gives him
‘immeasurable limits’. Cicero’s view is found between the two.
13
iii. Why not take a purely philosophical approach to the morality of orators?
Cicero focuses on philosophy in his discussion of style in book three, although he mentions its necessity throughout. He wishes to make the point, forcefully, that empty words without the substance of knowledge and philosophical depth are ineffective. This is why he deliberately places philosophy within his discussion of style. He is unique in that he wishes to reunite his discipline with that of philosophy. Cicero advocates a middle way between rigid rhetorical rules and abstract unpractical philosophical thought. This brings us on to our final question, which was a major issue for Cicero when writing De Oratore.
Using the historically successful figure of Cicero to judge the strength of speeches ensures that the importance of the political decisions is dramatically in focus, rather than put aside in an attempt to judge morality, a slippery concept. There is only one direct mention of the dangers of rhetoric, brilliance in the hands of madmen, in the whole of Cicero’s De Oratore. ‘For if we put
the full resources of speech at the disposal of those who lack these virtues, we will certainly not make orators of them, but will put weapons into the hand of madmen.’31 Without the ‘all
embracing knowledge’ Cicero refers to as virtues, the orator resembles the manipulator which Socrates/Plato so despised. Yet this is the only section where Cicero directly refers to the morality needed for the ideal orator.
Here is the key to why using Cicero’s analysis is fascinating. The philosophical orator uses his knowledge as a tool. Cicero’s relationship to ethics is what makes this text relevant to war speeches of any time period. An understanding of ethics, psychology, political theory and
philosophy, is central to the success of Cicero’s ideal orator, but the function of ethics appears to be in arousing the emotions of the audience, winning their hearts and minds, not merely
following the path of truth. As Wisse puts it ‘the role of ethics, in other words, is practical to a large extent; and this suggests that, in Cicero’s view, the main reason for the necessity of
philosophical knowledge as a whole is likewise practical.’.32 Cicero repeats often that the greatest
and most significant task of the orator is arousing his audience’s feelings. ‘I think nothing is more admirable, than being, through speech, to have a hold on human minds, to win over their
31 Cic.De or 3.55
32Jakob Wisse, Introduction to On the Idea Orator, De Oratore, James M.May And Jakob Wisse, New York Oxford (Oxford University Press 2001) p.11
14
inclinations, to drive them at will in one direction, and to draw them at will from another.’33
Crassus here describes the rather devious art of persuasion. The control he has over ‘human minds’ and the ability to drive them ‘from one direction’ to ‘another’ is seen as ‘admirable’ rather than exploitative, since he implies the speakers’ high moral standards. Today the ability to persuade is also essential for those who aspire to the most powerful positions. There is evidence that Cicero was aware of the manipulation of the audience, yet he always maintains that
eloquence is the most important requirement, above philosophy and is in essence a force for good.
This allows us to judge the speeches, including Cicero’s own, in terms of knowledge, truth and technique. The techniques that Socrates found uncomfortable allow the speaker a platform, a space in the public eye. Morality is essential to Cicero’s ideal orator, implicitly the knowledge the orator would possess would mean they convinced people of the morally good cause of action, more importantly Cicero argues for the unity of knowledge and speech a separation that would, in theory, have meant that philosophy was never expressed publically.
The orator not the philosopher is the greatest individual because he is active in public life. His major problem with philosophers is their inactivity. Cicero does not openly condemn the practice of philosophy. In De Oratore, Cicero wishes the orator to ‘dismiss these people without
insulting them’.34 In the first book Cicero states that, ‘I give them leave to discuss such matters
in their secluded corners’.35 The philosophers study and teach the subject of human nature but
so too do orators, covering the same knowledge and applying it. The most effective classical example Crassus uses is the heroic Achilles in Homer’s Iliad, ‘a speaker of words and doer of deeds.’ 36 The orator’s path is brave rather than gentle. Crassus describes the life of oratory at the
cross roads of the two paths of thought (philosophy and public life) as one ‘which is full of reefs and dangers, and where even Odysseus had lost his way’.37 The reference to heroic Greece
challenges the monopoly the philosophers claim over Greek culture. The heroes are on the side of the active and brave orators, at least metaphorically.
33 Cic.De or 1.30
34 Cic.De or 3.64, Having said this Crassus’ humorous criticisms are insulting. On those that have ‘taken up the patronage of
pleasure’ –Epicureanism – ‘still has nothing to do with the man whom we are looking,’ and they can continue ‘reposing in its delicate garden’. 3.63 He also disregards the Stoics using humour. ‘The Stoics, of whom I by no means disapprove, I still dismiss, without fearing their anger, seeing that they don’t know how to get angry at all.’3.65
35 Ibid.1.57 36 Ibid.3.57 37 Ibid.3.69
15
Book three argues convincingly that the separation between knowledge and speech was a result of men’s focus on philosophy rather than public life. Plutarch sees this as Cicero’s defining flaw, with a major theme of the Life of Cicero, ‘Cicero’s surrender to the love of glory rather than
philosophical training’.38 However, Cicero praises those who maintained the unity of speech and
knowledge, Themistocles, Pericles, and Theramenes, who were involved in the prospering state of Athens.39 Others who maintained this essential unity are the teachers of rhetoric, the sophists,
Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and Isocrates. Cicero distances himself from Plato in two ways; first he praises the orators, whom Socrates condemns as manipulators in Plato’s Gorgias and secondly, he
praises Gorgias as an example of a teacher of this same wisdom. Plato’s work, Gorgias is
essentially a thesis against rhetoric, where he discredits the historical and literary Gorgias.
Cicero responds directly to the Plato’s attack on rhetoric. The context of which is important if we are too understand how Cicero justifies disagreeing with Plato. Born in 427BC Plato saw the decline of Periclean society. He viewed that the attempt at rebuilding Athenian society, after their disastrous defeats during the Peloponnesian war, had made no attempt to improve the
degenerate morality of the Athenian people and political institutions. Using Socrates to attack those instrumental to this demise, the dialogue aims to expose the flaws in Athenian society more than rhetoric alone.
Rhetoric, within Gorgias, is ‘treated as subservient to politics, being indeed the main tool of politics in Athenian democracy’. Dodds, correctly concludes that the dialogue is ‘primary concerned with the moral basis of politics’ of which rhetoric, inseparable from Athenian
democracy, takes a philosophical bashing.40 Plato decides that ‘all existing forms of governing are
wrong.’41 This is not to say that he does not envisage a time when true philosophy will have
political power or that the ruling classes would not take to philosophy and strive for perfect governance. The criticism is relevant to Plato’s and Socrates time and political atmosphere, where rhetoric is synonymous with immoral Athenian politics and the eventual trial and
execution of Socrates is very much in the minds of the audience. Outside of this political reality
38 Simon Swain, Hellenism and Empire, Language, Classism, and Power in the Greek world AD 50 -250, Oxford (Clarendon Press 1996) p.143
39 These examples are all Greek statesmen of the 5th century. 40 E.R. Dodds, Plato, Gorgias translation with notes (Oxford 1979) p.1 41 Plat. L 7 326 a;D 25
16
and in the gap Plato leaves for a philosophical elite, Cicero is able to place himself and the perfect orator. Vikers describes a flaw in Socrates’ argument, adding that it is not adequately exploited by the useless interlocutor who refute Socrates within Gorgias. ‘The orator, just as much as the philosopher, we could say, will and must support causes that may be unpopular with a section of the community, or indeed all of it, since he knows or believes it to be in their best interest.’42
Cicero still definitively contradicts Socrates stance in Gorgias but his view can be found in a more
sympathetically presented interlocutor within the dialogue, Callicles. Callicles describes an
‘individual endowed with a nature sufficiently strong’ who would lead the community and he also shares Cicero’s view that philosophy should be taught to children not gentlemen.43 The ideal
orator is a perfect fit for this character.44 Socrates’ attack on Callicles focuses on the excess and
moral transgression of the Athenian political elite. These can, and should, be separated from criticisms of the practice of oration and seen as morally corrupt values specific to the Athenian situation. This is not to say that Rome did not suffer from moral corruption but the criticism should not be extended to oratory as a practice and vehicle for improving society. Cicero’s view of philosophy is perhaps made most clear with his criticism of Cato, ‘he speaks in the Senate as though he were living in Plato’s Republic instead of Romulus’ cesspool.’45 Cicero operates within
the real world, which makes his choice of dialogue format of De Oratore a shrewd statement against
philosophers.
According to Cicero, Socrates’ greatest fault was that his discussions, reported by Plato, ‘split apart the knowledge of forming wise opinions and speaking with distinction, two things that are, in fact, tightly linked.’46 In this section Cicero, through Crassus, praises Socrates as a philosopher
but also as an orator, using the same language he and Antonius used in the previous book to praise and describe the ideal orator. Socrates is judged ‘according to the unanimous testimony of the learned and the verdict of the whole of Greece … not only because of his intelligence,
42 Vikers (1989) p.98 43 Plat. Gorg, 483a-e
44 Crassus describes philosophical thought as an art important for education but not worthy of devoting one’s life too. ‘And in
these arts, which were devised to educate children’s minds humane culture and virtue, they spent their time, yes their whole lives.’ He is shocked at this supposed waste of time.
45 Cic. Letters to Atticus 21, Antium(?), ca. June 3(?) 60. 8 46 Cic.De or 3.60
17
acumen, charm, and refinement, but also because of his eloquence, variety, and fullness’.47
Eloquence, variety and fullness are referred to in many sections of book one and two as requirements for the ideal orator.48 For Cicero, the blame is with Plato because later
philosophers refused to put his work against rhetoric within its political context and acknowledge Socrates’ own use of rhetoric during his career.
The final victory Cicero claims over Socrates is expressed by Catulus, ‘the orator (Gorgias) was forced to yield to the philosopher – but either he was never defeated by Socrates and this dialogue is untrue, or, if he was, Socrates was obviously more eloquent and a more skilful speaker and, as you call it, a better and more copious orator…’ In both scenarios oratory was superior. Typically Cicero articulates a two edged argument, both of which prove his view; this technique can be seen in many of his defence speeches.49
Diplomatically one of the younger characters most definitively claims this victory, rather than Crassus or Antonius. The effect is that Cicero expresses the opinion at a slight distance from his own views but it appears all the same. Wisse comments on the grammar of the sentence in his footnote. ‘Catulus sentence breaks off here and he starts with “At any rate.” This irregular structure (anacoluthon) mirrors his excitement, and thus the importance of the argument he makes about Plato’s Gorgias … it turns the outcome of Gorgias on its head’.50 The allegation is
that the manner in which Socrates criticised rhetoric was through the art of persuasion and techniques of eloquence.
Crassus argues that Aristotle’s work deals with concepts such as justice and friendship in one volume but when it comes to oratory, rhetoric has its own book, so eloquence belongs to the orators. The orators own the art of speaking and therefore exceed the philosophers in excellence. The ability to manipulate the audience is considered vital in the De Oratore. It is depicted as an
appropriate and necessary skill for the perfect statesmen.
47 Cic.De or 3.61 Crassus puts this plainly in 3.67 when describing Socrates’ dialogues in Plato. ‘In this complete rejection of the
mind and senses as interments of judgement, he is said to have employed an exceptionally charming manner of speaking.’
48 The most similar reference is the ‘almost superhuman power and excellence of the orator are displayed; to employ distinction,
fullness, and variety’ 2.120, 1.5, 3.36
49 Cic. Pro Cael. 38 Cicero describes an immoral woman, a prostitute. He makes it clear that Clodia is not a prostitute but if she was the kind of women he describes, which alludes to the prosecutions own narrative, then Caelio could not be blamed for his youthful lust. Either Clodia is immoral or Caelio is youthfully unexperienced. In both cases Cicero wins.
18
2. Cicero. The Second Philippic
Introduction
The fourteen speeches against Marc Antony, the Philippicae, are considered Cicero’s most mature
works. They also marked the last and most courageous phase of Cicero’s career. In a desperate attempt to save his beloved republic, in which he could function with most success, he attempts to exploit the weaknesses and absences of Marc Antony.51 Marc Antony had the support of
legions that had been loyal to Caesar, as well as some support in the plebeian assembly, but had been blocked in the senate when he proposed legal consolidations of his superiority. Cicero’s aim was to unite the inner circle of oligarchical aristocrats, in which as a ‘new man’ he would never
really belong, with the followers of Marian tradition, the military minded men who shared Caesars ambitions, using the greatest weapon he had, oratory.52 Cicero takes on the task of the
ideal orator which Crassus of De Oratore describes. He, Cicero, would ‘walk unharmed even amid
the weapons of the enemy, protected not so much as by a herald’s staff as the title of orator’.53
This is explored within the speech itself, with Marc Antony protected by arms and praised by brutes, while Cicero is allied with the greatest men of Rome and attacks Marc Antony’s morality and skill as an orator.54 Cicero’s ultimate goal, which becomes clearer from the Third Philippic, was
all out war against Marc Antony as an enemy of Rome.
In this respect a parallel to Demosthenes, a Greek model orator Cicero had adopted, combating the neoatticists attacks on his style.55 Demosthenes had written the original Philippicae, in the light
of the imminent Macedonian threat. Demosthenes was readying the free state of Athens against a foreign invasion; a parallel is drawn where Marc Antony is the foreign threat. Cicero was positioning himself politically with the famous Attic statesmen. Even in the title of the works, Cicero creates authority and makes the audience well-disposed to his character. Like
51 Cic.Phil 8. 11 Cicero remarks himself, ‘where would my activity have found scope without court cases, without laws, without law courts?’
52 Cecil W.Wooten, Cicero’s Philippics and Their Demosthenic Model, The Rhetoric of Crisis (The University of North Carolina Press 1983) p.12- 15
53 Cic.De or 1.202
54 Cic.Phil 2. 44. The context and beginning of Cicero’s argument is an attack against a brutal bandit ‘Why is the senate surrounded by a circle of armed men, why do your henchmen hear me with their swords in hand, why are the doors of the Temple of Concord not open, why do you bring into the Forum the most barbarous men of all nations, Ituraeans, with arrows?’
55 ‘Cicero’s major critical opposition derived from his Atticist adversaries, who enthusiastically found pretext to accuse Cicero of stylistic effeminacy.’ Dugan (2005) p.105. By drawing attention to a successful Atticist who did not use the plain style alone, Cicero could justify his oration even to these critics.
19
Demosthenes, Cicero was involved ‘in a struggle for survival, not only for the republican constitution but, more importantly, for the only type of government in which he could function effectively.’56
Despite defining this period as Cicero’s most courageous phrase of oratory, beginning with the
First Philippic, the story of the second Philippic starts with fear rather than courage. Fear for
Cicero’s own safety. On the 2nd of September 44BCE, Marc Antony delivered a damning speech
that denounced Cicero’s whole career, declaring Cicero his enemy. The speech was performed in the temple of Concordia, the goddess most associated with peace, yet Marc Antony was
surrounded by soldiers.57 Considering the manner of Cicero’s death, murder at Marc Antony’s
orders, it was perhaps wise for Cicero not to be present. He had performed in similar circumstances once before but in this case he left Rome.58 Fleeing the city, Cicero never
answered Marc Antony’s attack in person. Instead, Cicero left a composed response it in the hand of Atticus, with instructions to circulate when he deemed it most potent and effective. When the rivalry between Cicero and Marc Antony was contested publically there became no need to hide the speech. It may have been published in December that year just after the delivery of the Third Philippic.59 There are a few advantages in its long deliberation, editing and the fact
that the speech was not delivered. The speech itself is bold, lengthy and shows techniques designed to stir the emotions of a wider audience without the constraints of fear. Juvenal singles out the Second Philippic as Cicero’s masterpiece.60 The speech also displays a great deal of narrative
context to set its fictional delivery date. On one hand it is a bitter attack on Marc Antony’s character. On the other hand, Cicero defends his illustrious and turbulent career. For these reasons it is a perfect companion to De Oratore, which is a theoretical defence of oratory.
In De Oratore Antonius, the interlogers describe the process the orator goes through before
speaking. First he instructs the orator to spend time ‘discovering what you should say’ then
56 Wooten (1983) p. 49
57 D. R. Shackleton, Introduction - Cicero Volume XV Loeb Classical Library 189, Philippics 1-6 pp. 49-52
58 On the 7th of April Cicero performed a speech in defence of Milo, the Pro Milone. At the time of delivery troops had been posted in the forum and Pompey, as dictator, had a military guard next to the treasury. Milo had been accused of the murder of Clodius in a time when violence was rife. Milo and Clodius were ‘each as ruthless as the other, though Milo stood for the better sort of people.’ – Quintus Asconius Pedianus’ Account
59 Some scholars believe that the speech never widely circulated, despite this the desired audience and merits of the speech remain unaffected. T. Rice Holmes, The Architect of the Roman Empire, (Oxford 1929)
60 His motives for using the speech was to prove that eloquence killed Cicero but this is relevant to the politics of his time with the advantage of the looking back at the end of the republic. Shackleton, Introduction p. 51
20
‘arranging what you have discovered, next expressing it in disguised words, then committing it to memory’ and ‘finally uttering it or delivering it’.61 Unique to this speech the last two sections of
the process were not applied. Rather than judge the process Antonius says, the focus must be on invention (discovery), arrangement and expression. The reason I have chosen this speech is that it was written to be distributed as an example of perfect oratory. As there is no way to know how it was performed, so delivery and memory cannot be analysed, we can look at how Cicero
controlled the emotions of the audience, even without seeing them. As stated in the De Oratore ‘it
is the pen, the pen, that is the best and most eminent teacher and creator of speaking’.62
An overview of the components of the speech will come first but the most interesting structural points are often used to emphasis Cicero’s emotional appeals. The next part of invention, which we must explore, is how Cicero wanted to appear to the audience, his ‘ethos’. Next we will look at the ‘pathos’, the emotional appeal of the speech which is intertwined with the orator’s understanding of philosophy and the deplorable immorality of Marc Antony. As the De Oratore
states it is quite difficult to separate the most important aspects of persuasion, ethos and pathos, from expressions so often logos and distinguished words will be examined together.
The speech starts with Cicero declaring that it is his fate to wage war against the enemies of the republic.63 The next section deals with the allegations, by Marc Antony, that Cicero abused their
friendship, a claim that Cicero makes seem preposterous because of the enmity between the two senators.64 Cicero makes it clear that he will defend himself the best he can, dealing with the
accusations against his career, but also says he has no choice but to attack Marc Antony.65 On
the offensive, Cicero then criticises Marc Antony’s skill as an orator, which highlights Cicero’s own skill in comparison.66 In the following section Cicero goes through Marc Antony’s life
exposing his immortality. Cicero guides the audience from Marc Antony’s early life, through his success during and as a result of the civil war and ending with his consulship and a dark warning
61 Cic.De or 2.79
62 Cic.De or 1.150 Cicero’s expands this point in 1.151, ‘all the thoughts and all the words that are most appropriate to each type of subject, and that are most clear and brilliant, cannot help but pass under the point of our pen one after the other’
63 Cic.Phil 2. 1-2 64 Ibid. 3-10a 65 Ibid.11-42 66 Ibid.42b-43
21
about the cost of the ‘path of glory’.67 The speech closes with an appeal to Antony to renounce
tyranny and avoid Caesar’s fate.68
Arrangement is left mainly up to the good sense of the orator for Cicero. In De Oratore he states
that, ‘an orator’s preliminary skirmish should not be like those of the Samnite gladiators, who, before the fight, brandish spears that they don’t at all use in combat’.69 Cicero’s prologue is
essential to the successful use of ethos and pathos. Other successful points of arrangement are Cicero signposts, which mark the apparent ends of sections or changes in technique. Often these signposts are part of Cicero’s advice to ‘appear to aim at nothing but give instruction’ while ethos and pathos ‘like blood through a body, flow throughout the whole of the speech’.70 Cicero
indicates a structural point saying, ‘I have something to say on my own behalf and a good deal to say against Marcus Antonius.’ The arguments throughout always includes the latter but the structural point hides this. The first section deals with the actual charge of the case. It is about Cicero’s abuse of the friendship between Antonius and Cicero but soon turns into a bitter attack on Antonius’s character.71 The next part, indicated by Cicero, is a narrative of Marc Antony’s life,
not the narrative of a single event but his whole life. Yet again Cicero indicates a change in the speech but allows himself the luxury of continuing to attack Antonius’ general character.
During the narrative Cicero is able to interject with a previous argument. ‘I wonder why, therefore, you say I prompted Milo to do that deed, seeing that when you offered me the same service of your own accord I never encouraged you’.72 To the audience the repetition is natural as the
narrative was referred alongside the refutations but its familiarity serves to reinstate it as a true and marks conclusive argument. The digression is successful in adding a new layer to Marc Antony’s deceit. According to Cicero, he himself offered to kill Clodius and now attacks Cicero for rejoicing at Clodius’ murder. As Antonius says, ‘it is often useful to digress from the proposition you are arguing in order to stir emotions.’73 The digression is particularly effective as Cicero once again
turns an accusation directed at him onto Marc Antony. As for Cicero’s conclusion it is true to the words of De Oratore. ‘Everything, in both the preceding sections of the speech and
67 Cic.Phil 2 43 -111 68 Ibid.112-119 69 Ibid.325 70 Cic.De or 2.310 71 Cic.Phil 2. 3 72 Ibid.49 73 Cic.De or 2.311
22
particularly in the last, should be aimed at stirring the jurors’ emotions as much as possible and at prompting them to think what is to our advantage.’
Ethos
It is ‘fundamental for an orator, in the first place, to give his audience precisely the impression of his own person that he wanted.’74 The ethos also includes the demonization of the opposition, in
this case Marc Antony. Antonius states that, ‘nothing in oratory, Catulus, is more important than for the orator to be favourably regarded by the audience, and for the audience itself to be moved in such a way to be ruled by some strong emotional impulse rather than by reasoned
judgement.’75
De Oratore instructs the speaker to use a style appropriate to the orator’s character and create a
character appropriate to the occasion. The nature of ethos, the way in which the speaker wishes the audience to see him and in turn trust him, is established with precision. For Cicero
everything counts when it comes to ethos, sympathy for the orator, likability, morality, authority and even appearance. Although Cicero burrows elements from Aristotle’s work, Aristotle’s view of ethos is less all encompassing. He views ethos as the expertise of an individual.76 Cicero is far
more practical, seeing all elements of an orator’s ethos as vital to persuasion. He states in De Oratore, that ‘the speakers themselves must be considered: their age, their prestige, and how much
authority they possess.’77 In the composition of The Second Philippic Cicero draws on his great
authority as the defender of the republic with more than ‘twenty years’ of experience and mentions it immediately. Antonius says that ‘people’s minds are won over by a man’s prestige, his accomplishments, and the reputation he has acquired by his way of life. Such things are easier to embellish than to fabricate if totally lacking’.78 In Cicero’s case he should have had the
advantage of needing little exaggeration at this stage of his career. However, he is careful to overstate his individual role in saving the republic. As Cicero’s greatest victory against Catilina was over twenty years before, he had to work to remind his audience of his own ‘greatness’.
74 Cic.De or 1.87 75 Ibid. 2.178 76 Arist. Rh.1.2.3-4, 1.8.6,1.9.1,2.1.1,2.12-17 77 Cic.De or.3.211 78 Ibid.2.182
23
From the very first line of the speech we can see how Cicero applies his own theory. As Antonius makes clear, ‘the audience’s expectation should be met as quickly as possible’.79 The
first line introduces the ethos of the speaker and a dichotomy which is mentioned throughout the speech.
‘To what destiny of mine, members of the senate, should I ascribe the fact that in these twenty years there was never an enemy of the Republic who did not at the same time declare war on me too?’80
The rhetorical question succeeds in creating a binary opposition from the speech’s first line. The audience is addressed directly with a complex question, which includes the three major themes of the speech to come. Cicero’s own destiny and career, the republic and its moral values, and the enemies of the republic. Cicero, the republic, which includes and is represented by the members of the Senate, is shown on one side of justice and all that have opposed Cicero on the other. War is mentioned from the start, the occasion is set, and Cicero gives himself the opportunity to become the voice of peace and order later in the speech. ‘I never ceased advocating peace, concord, composition’.81 Cicero appears as the experienced and reactive republican consular in
great contrast with the emerging ‘bandit’ character of Marc Antony.82 Cicero’s first line is bold
and it succeeds as an ‘introduction that will make our hearers well-disposed to us (the orator), receptive, and attentive’.83 Antonius’ adds, deviating from the rigid rules, that we must secure the
audience’s ‘attention frequently arousing their interests throughout our entire presentation, not by an announcement at the beginning.’84 This is exactly what Cicero does in the Second Philippic.
First he asks the audience to consider Cicero’s relationship with the republic and Marc Antony’s identification with its enemies and then he reiterates this idea throughout the speech. Simply named, a ‘repetition of a thought’ is used which Crassus includes in his extensive list of effective techniques in book three.85
Cicero’s mounted defence against Marc Antony’s murder accusations includes this repetition leading up to the climax of the argument. One of Marc Antony’s major charges against Cicero,
79Cic.De or 2.313 80 Cic.Phil 2. 1 81 Ibid.25 82 Ibid.6
83 Cic.De or 2.80, Antonius uses the same language found in the tradition of the handbooks, such as the sudo-Cicero text Rhetoica ad Herennium which mentions how to keep the audience ‘attentive, receptive and well disposed’ in 6.5,
6.9, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 11.3, 11.8. 84 Ibid.2.82
24
according to Cicero, is that he murdered Caesar. The evidence for this is that, apparently, Brutus called Cicero’s name after the assassination, blood still dripping from his hands. Cicero turns his defence into a way of reminding the audience of his great deeds. ‘Quite possibly the reason he called my name was just this: after an achievement similar to my own, he called on me rather than another to witness that he was now my rival in glory.’86 The major accusation or at least the one
Cicero wishes to focus on, is inverted to show Cicero’s glory and links with the republic. Rather than just denying the accusation, Cicero defends the men who carried out the deed. The speech sets out the opposing sides: ‘all decent men who killed Caesar,’ are with him, his ‘rivals in glory’. At the beginning of the climax of the speech Cicero makes the point emphatically, ‘you have dared to attack me before the assembled senate, despite the fact that this body had judged me the saviour and you the enemy of the Republic?’87 The central theme of the speech is laid bare. Cicero
draws authority from the senate themselves, even when reading the speech, the audience would be persuaded by the unity Cicero creates between himself and the republic.
As Crassus states ‘praising and blaming’ is essential to stirring the emotions of the audience. ‘For nothing is better suited for building up and amplifying a speech than the ability to do both of these with great fullness.’88 Cicero praises himself and the senate and blames Marc Antony even
for the very crimes Cicero is accused of. Just as Antonius says in book two, support ‘must be built up by demolishing your opponent’s arguments and by proving your own at the same time.’89
In the introduction he does this by stating that Antonius is unique in not attacking the Republic directly but attacking Cicero himself with ‘unprovoked abuse’.90 Despite immediately making a
distinction between past enemies of the state, namely Caesar and Catiline, and Marc Antony, the dichotomy Cicero has already created, Cicero, the people and senate on one side and Marc Antony on the other, remains in the minds of the audience. Marc Antony is clearly the enemy of the republic, but Cicero allows the audience to deduce this rather than forcing the issue early in the speech. In this way he mirrors De Oratore, the ‘strongest point in a speech should always
come first, provided … that some of our excellent resources should also be reserved for the
86 Cic.Phil 2. 28
87 Ibid.51 also in 11 ‘And now you, as a man of sense and not merely of eloquence, have dared to abuse these measures in front of those whose advice and wisdom determined them!’ Cicero flatters the Senate after aligning his decision making, as consul, with theirs.
88 Cic.De or 3.105 89 Ibid.2.321 90 Cic.Phil 2. 1
25
end.’91 Cicero builds this argument up always linking his own character with the audience. The
climax is far from subtle. In the last throws of the speech, even compared to Cinna, Sulla and Caesar, Marc Antony’s return to Rome is terrible. ‘But what an uncivilized, monstrous display yours is—men armed with swords follow you in battle order’. The depiction of the enemy of the state is fully realised and the indignation at the armed followers or brutes, who would have attended the speech, if it had taken place, is reiterated.
As in Demosthenes’ speeches against Phillip, Cicero undercuts the arguments of his opponent by identifying his politics with that of the audience. All honours Cicero has received are displayed as both personal and public successes.92 Cicero re-establishes the opposition between the audience
and Marc Antony, in his criticism of Marc Antony’s logos. Marc Antony is said to have been critical of the Caesar punishment whilst admitting he was involved in ‘monstrous crime’. The crimes referred to are to bear arms in the city of Rome and to plan for its ruin, just as the thwarted Catilinian conspirators had done.93 He states the senate was in charge of punishment
and he himself was the prosecutor. ‘Indeed a clever pleader! He does not understand that he is praising the man against whom he is speaking, while he is abusing his audience.’94 The irony is
clear. The impression Cicero creates of Marc Antony is one of a total fool.95 He has made the
worst mistake in insulting his audience and Cicero, as he has aligned himself so closely with the senate, exposes this. Referring to De Oratore, Cicero states that a mistake in a speech can have grave
consequences. Crassus says, ‘can any action be more disgraceful than … [an orator] handling the smallest and simplest matters, should slip up so badly that he is pitied by some, and laughed at by others?’96 In this case we can use the De Oratore to understand what technique Cicero criticises in
Marc Antony’s speech. Marc Antony is the one who is ‘pitied and laughed at’ but only because Cicero himself exposes this flaw in his oratory. Using the trust and respect he earns throughout his speech, by discrediting Marc Antony’s, Cicero’s is able to turn Marc Antony’s argument into an attack on the audience and expose an apparently fraudulent logos. As we unfortunately do not have Marc Antony’s speech, which may never have been published, the audience may have
91 Cic.De or 2.314 92 Wooten (1983) p.53 93 Cic.Phil 2. 17 94 Ibid.18
95Cic.Phil 2. ‘unrivaled stupidity’, 19. ‘Obviously you are a fool’, 19 ‘You utter fool!’ 29, ‘Observe the stupidity of the man, or of the brute’, 30 ‘you addle-brain’, 42 ‘such a great price the Roman people had to pay for you to learn to be a fool!’,43 ‘First, note the unbelievable stupidity of the man.’ 80
26
forgotten or never heard what Marc Antony said exactly. We cannot know how accurately Cicero reproduces his arguments but we can see how Cicero successful defeats his own summary of the attack. One of the most telling techniques Antonius describes, in De Oratore, is to ‘make no
response whatsoever to a troublesome, difficult argument or points.’ Only embrace the strongest of arguments in a speech.
One example of the strong arguments is the clear distinction in political character. Cicero’s description of both the men’s respect for their consulship shows the negative ethos of Marc Antony’s, ‘he, after all, is nothing of a consul, neither in his mode of life nor in his official
conduct nor in the manner of his election; whereas I without any question am a consular.’97 Marc
Antony’s status is undermined. His elite position is disgraced by his ‘mode of life’ and Cicero also accuses him of bribing the electorate. Antonius states that the speaker should ‘really win goodwill, and alienate the audience from those who do not possess (the typical qualities of people who are decent and unassuming)’.98 Cicero works hard to alienate the audience from
Marc Antony throughout the speech.
The alienation is produced by Cicero’s imagery. On his return to Rome, Cicero makes the difference between him and Marc Antony clear. Cicero describes how firstly he returned ‘by daylight, not darkness; secondly, it was in boots and a toga, not in Gaulish slippers and a cloak.’99
Marc Antony is the agent of darkness and deceit, returning to Rome in secret, whereas Cicero openly returns in the daylight as he has nothing to hide from the senate and people of Rome, who are personified by the geographical city itself. Marc Antony returns wearing foreign attire, rather than the traditional ‘boots and toga’, which represent the civilised Roman citizen. The ‘Gaulish slippers’ and ‘cloak’ are barbarian, showing Marc Antony to be a foreign threat.100 Marc
Antony is a foreign enemy just as Macedon was to the free Athenians in Demosthenes’ oration. Also, rather than wearing the toga, the symbol of diplomacy, the slippers are represented as war like. Cicero is on the side of peace and transparency whereas Marc Antony is an enemy of Rome.
Later Cicero uses his knowledge of Homer to reinforce this dichotomy. ‘As Helen was to the Trojans, so this fellow was to this Republic, the cause of war, the cause of ruinous destruction’.
97 Cic.Phil 2, 10 98 Cic.De or 2.182 99 Cic.Phil 2, 76
27
Crassus states that the orator, ‘must read poetry’ and all ‘writers of the noble arts’ to give
distinction to a speech.101 Although Homer is one of the most well-known literary references, the
use of Helen is successful for a number of reasons. As the Iliad was well known, the link will be
assessable to the audience, even if they didn’t read Greek, who knew these stories by way of tragedies performed in Latin. The magnitude of the Trojan War heightens the real danger posed to the republic, the ‘ruinous destruction’ that Cicero wishes to connect to Marc Antony. There is also humour in comparing Marc Antony to the most beautiful women in literature, albeit a dark humour appropriate to the situation. Ridiculing an opponent by demonstrating their effeminate behaviour; not being a true man is a symptom of non-Romaness. Cicero demonstrates this himself when he attacks Chrysogonus in the Pro Roscio. Cicero described how his ‘hair is carefully
styled and soaked in perfume’ contrasting greatly with the escort of the ‘band of citizens in togas’ who follow the rich man. Transgressions of gender juxtaposed with ideas of Roman citizenship work well to give the audience a sense of otherness in the opponent, reaffirming trust in Cicero. The accusation was that if a man showed signs of mollitia, ‘softness’ or ‘effeminacy’ and sexual
passivity he lacked of power and control.102 One sign of mollitia was to be over-careful with one’s
appearance, as Chrysogonus is, and the accusation means much more with its connotations of passive sex, a female appetite for pleasure and immorality.
Humour takes up a large section of De Oratore.103 This may be the reason Cicero is criticised for
his inappropriateness by later ancient writers.104 Despite this De Oratore states that, ‘from types of
urbanity we must take bits of witticism and humour that we can sprinkle, like a little salt, throughout all of our speech’.105 Cicero is successful in doing this in the Second Philippic without
appearing ridiculous. Antonius agrees with Crassus, in the De Oratore, that ‘joking should not
detract from authority’.106 On several occasions Marc Antony is described as unmanly and the
wife of Caesar, which contrast greatly with Cicero as ‘father’ to a great many prominent
Romans.107 In the introduction to the narrative of Marc Antony’s life Cicero says, ‘you put on the
toga of manhood and promptly turned it into the badge of a harlot. You started out as a common
101 Cic.De or 1.159
102 Catherine Edwards, The politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2002) p.64 103 Cic.De or 216b- 2.340 - Humour
104 Plut. Dem.cum.Cic. 1.4. Cicero ‘often was carried along in his jesting to the point of buffoonery’. 105 Cic.De or 1.159
106 Ibid.2.229
107 Cic.Phil 2, 12 ‘every member present thanked me as a son might thank a father, acknowledging himself indebted to me for life, goods, children, and the Republic.’
