Cicero’s Case Against Verres

Many of Cicero’s points are cleverly structured so as to provide the most convincing attack on Verres, for example when he discusses Verres’ behaviour in Aspendos he begins by describing how “nullum te Aspendi signum…reliquisse” (You have left no statue in Aspendos) which gives his audience a vague impression of Verres and his thieving habits that is not easy to take seriously on its own, since it is such a great claim. However he then develops this by referring to specific examples of what Verres has stolen – the statue of the cithara player and the gold in Diana’s shrine in Perge – which, since they are more detailed and therefore more plausible than Cicero’s claim that Verres seized every statue in Aspendos, add weight to his original accusation, since they confirm his reputation as a thief and blacken his character, especially since stealing from Diana’s shrine required what Cicero describes as “tanta audacia” (outrageous boldness), implying that since Verres was daring enough to steal from a goddess, he was daring enough to have emptied Aspendos of statues. Therefore, Cicero structures his speech well to turn what could have been a weak point that came across as a hyperbolic claim into a convincing, well-supported attack on Verres.

Cicero’s case is also convincing because of the proof he offers of the existence of Verres’ copious amounts of statues – he refers to the time when Verres’ possessions decorated the forum, and to the many eyewitnesses that confirm this, as both “populo Romano” (the Roman people) and “legati ex Asia atque Achaia plurimi” (very many legates from Asia and Achaea) saw Verres’ display of statues – and, more importantly, he also proves that Verres’ had not bought a single one of his statues by examining his accounts (from when he kept them); these accounts are so incriminating for Verres that Cicero is able to challenge him to “Vnum ostende in tabulis aut tuis aut patris tui emptum esse” (show that, in your accounts or in your father’s accounts, you have bought one). Therefore, Cicero offers evidence of both the multitude of Verres’ statues and the fact that he hasn’t bought them, thereby directly implying that he must have plundered them; this part of his case is objectively solid and would suffice in a modern law court. Cicero’s mocking tone – for example his sarcastic comment that Verres was “quidem in Achaiam, Asiam, Pamphyliam sumptu publico…mercator signorum…missus est” (of course sent to Achaea, to Asia, to Pamphylia at public expense as a merchant of statues), which comes a response to Verres’ claim that he did pay for his statues, and his description of how Verres stopped keeping his accounts as “ridiculum” (ridiculous) – is an underlying factor that further discredits Verres and augments Cicero’s case.

However, the part of Cicero’s speech that completely fails to convince me is when he discusses Verres’ stay in Lampsacus. Although Cicero’s description of Philodamus’ treatment at Rubrius’ hands is undeniably terrible – “aqua ferventi…perfunditur” (drenched with boiling water) is a disgraceful way for a host to be treated by his guest – he only manages to vaguely imply that Verres himself was present at the banquet, and when the speech is closely read, Cicero’s whole argument seems weak; it becomes clear that Verres didn’t personally do anything to harm Philodamus, and everything that Cicero claims to attempt to imply that he was responsible for what happened – ordering for Rubrius to be lodged with Philodamus in order to “viam munire ad stuprum” (pave the road to rape) – are completely unsupported. When one considers that the whole occurrence could have been caused by a cultural misunderstanding – Rubrius expecting more extravagant entertainment than what Philodamus had provided and calling in his daughter to make up for this – that got out of hand due to Rubrius’ hot-headedness and what they had been drinking, Cicero’s argument seems especially weak. The only parts of it that are reasonably effective are his allegations that Verres insisted on a journey that was “mages ad quaestum suum quam ad rei publicae tempus” (more to his own advantage tham for the advantage of the Republic), that he may have had “indomitas cupiditates atque effrenatas” (untamed and unbridled lusts) and that his companions were “nequissimis turpissimisque hominibus” (the most worthless and most shameful men). All these points are completely tangential to the case, which concerns Verres’ thefts, and the last one is rather unsurprising, since Cicero has already blackened Verres’ character at every opportunity, so it loses some of its impact. This part of the speech is anything but convincing.

The other flaw in the speech is that it could easily be considered over-extravagant. A great example of this is when Cicero condemns Verres for treating allied cities worse than generals treated enemy cities, since he would have carried off their ‘signa atque ornamenta’ (statues and ornaments) not to ‘tuam domum’ (your house) but to ‘Roman in publicam’ (to Rome, to public places). This a perfectly good point, but its impact is somewhat lessened by the immense extent to which Cicero supports it; he uses no less than five (detailed) examples of famous generals to prove that the spoils of enemy cities were indeed (on the most part) used for the benefit of the Roman people, a fact which his audience would have most likely been familiar with. However, Cicero also feels compelled to offer a ‘recens exemplum’ (recent example) of a victorious general – Publius Servilius – just to remove any concerns that his audience might have of the first five general’s behaviour being something from the past. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with the support that he gives his original point, it is so extensive that it starts to feel tangential and makes this part of his argument come across as bloated.

Stylistically, Cicero’s case is well-constructed and convincing. For example, he uses superlatives such as ‘prenissimum’ (very full) and totalising expressions like ‘omnia’ (everything) and ‘nullum’ (none) throughout his speech to add great emphasis to his points. He uses epanalepsis throughout the speech as well, repeating ‘externae nationae’ (foreign nations) and ‘sociorum et amicorum’ (friends and allies) to continuously attack Verres by reminding his audience of the damage that he caused to Rome’s alliances. He often addresses Verres as ‘te’ (you), and refers to him as ‘ille’ (that man) to make his speech seem direct and accusatory, making it easy to be convinced by its confident tone. This is occasionally coupled with polyptoton (for example ‘tu…tuis…tuorum’) to make the speech even more direct. Therefore, Cicero’s speech is stylistically written so as to be both engaging and convincing, since these fine touches support the argument as a whole.

Overall, Cicero’s case against Verres is a convincing attack; he completely succeeds in blackening his character and generally discrediting him, so that it is very easy to believe that he would have been guilty of the charges of his actions in Sicily. It is a pity that the Lamapsacus section is so weak in comparison to the rest of the speech, since it makes Cicero seem slightly desperate to throw as many accusations as possible at Verres, which is unnecessary and could have been easily avoided. It is unreasonable to criticise Cicero’s speech as one would if it had been read out in a modern court, since he wrote it in order to win his case in a Roman court; if he had been asked to prosecute Verres in a court today, then his speech would have been written very differently, but as he wrote his speech so as to make it as successful as possible – by the criteria of his time – it is hard not to overlook its flaws and applaud him.

Rhetorical Strategies of Identity-Construction in Juvenal’s Satire VI and Cicero’s Catiline Orations

In Satire VI and In Catilinam I and II, Juvenal and Cicero both make attacks on their enemies’ personal conduct to construct a Roman identity while appealing to “Roman values.” Their projects are indeed very similar; both raise questions of class, expressing fear at the way in which wealth and luxury are changing traditional values. Yet while Juvenal uses predominantly overt ad hominem attacks and misogyny throughout his satire, Cicero’s two orations demonstrate a slightly more complex range of tactics for constructing identity.The logic that Juvenal follows in his satire is perhaps crystallized in his analysis of the relationship between wealth and morality: “filthy lucre it was that first brought loose foreign morals amongst us, effeminate wealth that with vile self-indulgence destroyed us over the years” (l. 298-300). The language employed in this passage recalls and anticipates themes that he develops throughout the satire. Firstly, the passage recalls Juvenal’s opening sentence (“during Saturn’s reign I believe that Chastity still lingered on earth” (l. 1-2)) in its assumption that there was once a golden age of morals that has been supplanted by corruption. This assumption is necessary if one is to say that wealth (or anything else, for that matter) “first brought loose foreign morals amongst us,” since one could not distinguish a precise moment at which immorality took hold if there were not a moral age to stand in comparison. The passage thus points to the importance of Juvenal’s first sentence as the premise upon which much of his argument is based.Moreover, Juvenal makes an appeal to Roman national identity in describing the “loose morals” as “foreign,” implying that if Rome were true to its traditional values, immorality would not be as rampant. This word choice helps to subtly reinforce the audience’s identification with traditional Roman values by positioning anyone who thinks of himself as a true Roman on the side of morality. Invoking foreignness is a tactic that launches a cyclical process of identity construction by which Juvenal appeals to Roman identity while simultaneously defining that identity.In the first Catiline oration, Cicero seems to construct Roman identity in a somewhat similar way. “There is not here outside that conspiracy of ruined men a single person who does not fear you, not one who does not hate you” (p. 47), he says, addressing Catiline in front of the Senate. Cicero here creates a binary opposition between Catiline’s co-conspirators and all other senators. Like Juvenal, who opposes ‘true’ Roman values to the corrupted morals of his time, Cicero leaves no room in his binary for those who might not be in agreement with his accusations; in Cicero’s logic, if one is an upstanding senator, one must fear and hate Catiline—just as for Juvenal, if one has true Roman values, one will be critical of the immorality of the contemporary period.Juvenal further constructs his version of Roman identity in calling the corrupting wealth “effeminate.” This description positions morality on the side of masculinity, underlining the ‘moralist as misogynist’ theme that runs throughout the satire. The text is indeed littered with misogyny: Juvenal advocates suicide or homosexuality over marriage with a woman and describes in detail the immorality to which women are prone, including detailing their sexual indiscretions. In using the word “effeminate” in this passage, however, Juvenal makes explicit a cyclical association between women and corruption: women are not only perverted by wealth, it seems, but also somehow inextricably associated with that contaminating force. This association thus positions women, along with wealth, on the anti-Roman side of the binary, and Roman identity becomes bound up with normative male identity as well as traditional values.Juvenal returns repeatedly to this theme in his text, characterizing women as immoral through descriptions of their supposed sexual deviance and impropriety. His account of the Bona Dea’s festival exemplifies Juvenal’s positioning of women on the side of immorality: “…if they can’t track [the water-carrier] down either, and men are in short supply, [the women] are ready and willing to go down on all fours and cock their dish for a donkey. Would that our ancient rituals (at the very least in their public observances) were untouched by such nastiness!” (334-7). In this passage, Juvenal’s reference to bestiality demonstrates his female characters’ unbridled lust; they are so unrestrained and imprudent that they are willing even to have sex with animals in order to satisfy their desires. This lack of self-restraint is one example of the “vile self-indulgence” that Juvenal says wealth and luxury have fostered in the Roman people. Moreover, his exclamation following the description of the women’s immoral behavior (“would that our ancient rituals…”) reinforces the opposition between corruption and traditional Roman values. He appeals explicitly to a common Roman identity in referring to “our ancient rituals,” reminding his audience that they should identify with his critique of luxury, that they should conceive of themselves as being on the moral, prudent, masculine side of the binary. Yet his personal attacks on these women and their lifestyle choices has nothing to do with the behavior of actual Roman women; the women are simply characters that Juvenal constructs in order to appeal to and define Roman identity. It is through these overt attacks that he makes his case for traditional Roman values.Cicero’s first oration, in contrast, is significantly more reserved than Juvenal’s satire in its use of ad hominem attacks and misogyny; in fact, it explicitly refuses to attack Catiline on personal grounds:”I pass over the total ruin of your fortune which you will feel hanging over you on the coming Ides; I come to the events which are not concerned with the disgrace brought upon you by the scandals of your private life or with the poverty and shame of your family, but with the supreme interests of the State and the life and safety of us all” (p. 47).Here Cicero positions himself as being concerned with the law and the well-being of the state instead of with petty personal attacks, and in this posturing he seems to distance himself from Juvenal’s tactics. Whereas Juvenal goes into detail about people’s deviant sexual behavior, Cicero claims to forgo these kinds of attacks out of respect for the state. This claim seems to have been a wise move for Cicero when speaking before the Senate, since senators would have been more likely to condemn Catiline for criminal behavior and conspiracy against the state than for lifestyle choices; thus Cicero seems to behave out of a senatorial decorum.Nevertheless, this refusal to make ad hominem attacks is a rhetorical strategy, and Cicero does in fact preface the refusal with several such attacks:”What mark of family scandal is there not branded upon your life? […] What young man that you had ensnared with the allurements of your seduction have you not provided with a weapon for his crime or a torch for his passion? Or again, shortly after you had made room for a new bride by murdering your former wife, did you not compound this deed with yet another crime that defies belief?” (p. 47).Cicero accuses Catiline of specific personal transgressions just before saying that he will not attack Catiline’s person. This strategy allows him to appear dignified and above the fray while still subtly inserting ad hominem attacks in order to increase animosity toward Catiline. In this way, Cicero’s tactic seems to be slightly more complex than Juvenal’s use of personal attacks.Cicero’s second Catiline oration also attacks Catiline personally, yet without as much constraint; in this way, it seems to parallel more closely Juvenal’s methods of constructing identity. In this second oration, Cicero addresses the general populace instead of the more elite Senate, and he delivers the oration after Catiline has already been exiled; his tone is therefore less one of justification than in the first oration, and he is able to attack Catiline more viciously. He does so by associating Catiline with individuals that his audience would agree are dangerous or undesirable—gladiators, gamblers, adulterers, parricides—and by describing their personal behavior in detail. Catiline’s band exemplifies the immorality that accompanies luxury: “reclining at their banquets, embracing their whores, stupefied by wine, stuffed with food, crowned with garlands, reeking with scent, enfeebled by debauchery, they belch out in their conversation the murder of the loyal citizens and the firing of Rome” (p. 79). They are characterized as luxuriant (“reclining at their banquets”), lustful (“embracing their whores”), drunken (“stupefied by wine”), gluttonous (“stuffed with food”)—in short, excessive, profligate, imprudent, as well as murderous. This characterization parallels Juvenal’s condemnation of luxury and demonstrates a similar fear of its effects. But perhaps more importantly, this passage is one of several in this oration that seems geared to convince the urban plebs, who largely supported Catiline, to abandon him. Depicting Catiline and his followers as immoral, excessive and murderous is a good way to make the audience dissociate themselves from Catiline; and the plebs in particular would likely feel distanced by this characterization. Catiline had appealed to them by positioning himself as their senatorial protector and by capitalizing on their discontentment; but if he is gluttonous, lecherous, and careless with his money, he does not represent their concerns, does not have much in common with the way they live. Thus, in In Catilinam II, Cicero employs tactics similar to Juvenal’s in order to create an opposition between two groups.In the Catiline orations, however, the political stakes are higher than in Juvenal’s satire. The lives of the Roman citizens are at stake in Cicero’s orations, as he points out repeatedly: “if [Catiline] alone is removed out of all this band of brigands, we shall appear perhaps to have gained a short respite from anxiety and fear, but the danger will remain and be set deep in the veins and vitals of the Republic” (I., p. 65). This emphasis on the consequences of not exiling Catiline and this creation of a high-stakes situation is perhaps part rhetorical strategy and part natural reaction to a real danger. But whatever the degree of truth here, the fact that these orations were delivered in a political context plays an important role in the rhetorical tactics that Cicero uses. It is this context that demands the use of subtlety in employing ad hominem attacks in the first oration and necessitates an appeal to the urban plebs in the second. Ultimately, then, it is perhaps this context that lends the Catiline orations their complexity.

How Clodius’ History Is Used to Blacken His Character in the ‘Pro Milone’

Despite the fact that the Cicero constructs his argument based on factual evidence of what took place during the time before the fight and during the fracas itself, we cannot deny the fact that Cicero does at times use Clodius’ past actions to aid his desired acquittal of Milo. Although not his predominant argument, this tactic of blackening his character by alluding to past events, a technique known as paraleipsis, definitely helps to soften the jury’s attitudes towards a man who has already admitted to killing Clodius in self-defence, but arguably in doing so has removed “a festering wound” from Roman society as Cicero puts it. It must be noted that Cicero, as well as portraying Clodius in a bad light, helps extend this presentation as a malicious man by contrasting him with a seemingly virtuous Milo, which again appears to be an effective means of further bringing the character of Clodius into disrepute.

Cicero effectively inserts incidents of Cloduis’ past debauchery at moments where what he is speaking about in the trial resonates with these past actions. There is a moment where Cicero begins to speak about how there is always a chance of a robber being killed by the traveller rather than vice versa, and he ends his argument with an oblique reference to how “still a woman was falling upon men”. This covert, lingering phrase alludes to Clodius’ involvement with the Bona Dea scandal of 62BC in which he violated the sacred rights of the Vestal Virgins by attending one of their ceremonies dressed as a woman. There was a serious outrage in Rome at the time and the public demanded that he be punished by death for breaking such a religious sacrament, yet Clodius somehow managed to be acquitted by law; showing in itself his sly, manipulating nature, supported by when Cicero mentions the difference in Clodius’ retinue on the day of the attack to what it was usually: empty rather than burdened with strumpets and debauched women. This must still have been a tender issue for the Roman’s at the time, with it only 10 years beforehand, and thus is a very effective means of blackening the character of Clodius, particularly leaving it at the end of the section, since any Roman disrespecting Roman tradition was viewed with disdain.

We know that Clodius used his tribuneship to great effect; raising the support from the lower classes, creating a clear distinction between the faction of the senate, and those of the plebs at such a turbulent political time. Cicero on countless occasions alludes to how his followers roamed the streets causing absolute turmoil, like how in one section he notes that they burned down the senate house after the death of Clodius to show how angry and enrage they were. Indeed, he also mentions about how Clodius’ followers burned down the temple of the nymphs to extinguish the public records of the day and to cause general disruption. Although it is not strictly speaking directly linked to Clodius’ actions, these men were influenced and roused into the state of fury they are now in, and thus this is an effective argument by Cicero on blackening Clodius’ character since it shows the negative influence and lasting legacy he has on his followers.

It is mentioned in earlier sections that Clodius was the greatest driving force of criminals, and had always been the one to initiate aggressive meetings with Milo beforehand. Indeed, Cicero brings in the evidence that Marcus Favonius had said that Clodius was thirsty for Milo’s blood and that he would be dead within 3 days. This surely is very effective evidence to prove that Clodius had planned beforehand the assault on Milo because he was a hot-headed, violent individual. We must not forget that at the time Milo was running for Consul and Clodius for Praetorship and thus there was elevated tension between the two, as Clodius feared that with Milo in a senior rank to him, he would be unable to instigate his reforms. Indeed, this leads on to the point that Cicero makes to the audience about if hypothetically Clodius was to become consul. He argues that the state would crumble and fall into disrepair and squalor because of his licentious, totalitarian actions such as threatening people like Scantia for their properties with death, and stealing people’s children and wives, along with their money and their livelihood. This is very successful in blackening Clodius’ character as it plays on our human fears and emotions of family and possession, and would definitely have moved the jury on a human level to sympathise with the victims of such horror. He rounds it off nicely by saying that only Pompey, the man who has made Rome so great, can continue such “long lasting hopes”.

Clodius is described by Cicero as breaking property laws, and being ambitious in his desire to extend his property from the Janiculum to the Alps. He plays on the idea that he annexed the land of Marcus Paconius on the Prillian Lake without his permission and began to build a property on it, like how he built a wall that denied his sister access to her own forecourt and lodgings! This kind of behaviour which was not done through the “common artifice of law courts” was to be condemned and highlights the nature of Clodius as being devoid of empathy and morals.

Clodius’ involvement with the Cataline conspiracy is also alluded to by Cicero overtly, when he comments on how prior to the lawsuit they are now having, some citizens had begun to question whether Clodius would have, on behalf of Cataline, “seized some stronghold and broken out”. This is particularly effective evidence in blackening the character of Clodius, as the Catalinian conspiracy was effectively against Cicero and the state and so much of the Roman people were in support of how Cicero quwelled the uprising. Furthermore, Cicero comments how Clodius was responsible for exiling “a man whom the Roman people had deemed to be the saviour of the city” (Cicero himself) and thus this portrays Clodius as a villain, attempting to remove a man who has settled the anxieties of the nation. It is effective as it guides nationalistic feelings to see Clodius in a bad light.

When dealing with the nature of the questioning of slaves, Cicero comments how he believed that the interrogation of a slave was only permitted with a crime against the gods, and then adds on, or when there was an inquest into incest. It was common knowledge that Clodius had had incest with his full sister Clodia and thus this is effective in blacking the character of Clodius, as it brings fresh to the jury’s memory this crime against the gods, much like the Bona Deas scandle does.

Finally, Cicero aids the blackening of Clodius’ character by expressing the juxtaposition of Milo’s virtuous, selfless nature with it. He describes Milo as a man who has always had the best intentions for the state, who told Pompey of a plot against him whilst revealing his innocence from claims of his desire to overthrow Pompey, who Cicero would weep for due to the fact they are even now considering to exile him even though he has been so dutiful to the state. He says how kind Milo was to his slaves and how he was travelling with choristers and innocent maidens on the day of the attack. All of these contrast his positive intentions and virtues, with the deceit and criminality of Clodius, thus extending his black character.

Overall, we have to agree with the statement that Cicero does successfully deploy his references to blacken Clodius’ character as it is not his primary argument, but merely one to help persuade the judges to exonerate Milo. It is effectively contrasted with the positive character of Milo. Thus, by the end, we feel a clear distinction between the terror of Clodius who fell upon a hero to the state, and as a result we are disposed to perhaps acquit Milo.