Pro Archia has been described as undoubtedly the least typical forensic speech of Cicero. Cicero's client is not, as so often, a prominent Roman aristocrat accused of violence, bribery, or extortion, but a Syrian poet whose claim to Roman citizenship was disputed. This chapter reviews the historical circumstances of Archias' trial, and then discusses the speech itself and some of the issues it raises, especially that of why the encomium of literature is included, and how it contributes to the defence. The chapter examines the style used by Cicero in Pro Archia and asks what it was about this particular case that led him to adopt such a style. It argues that Pro Archia is an exercise in persuasion.
At Aen. 6.562–627 the Sibyl gives Aeneas a description of the criminals in Tartarus and the punishments to which they are condemned. The criminals are presented to us in several groups. The first consists of mythical figures, the Titans (580–1), the sons of Aloeus (582–4), Salmoneus (585–94), Tityos (595–600) and Ixion and Pirithous (601–7). Next Virgil turns away from mythical figures to particular categories of criminal. He mentions those who hated their brothers, who assaulted a parent, who cheated a cliens, who gloated over wealth they had acquired without setting aside a part for their family, who were put to death for adultery, and those who, breaking their masters' (‘dominorum’, 613) trust, made war on their country (608–14). The reference to the contemporary scene is unmistakable. The mention of a cliens (609) indicates that we have moved from Greece to Rome. Moreover, ‘quique ob adulterium caesi’ (612) brings to mind Augustus' concern over moral standards, the subject of legislation in 28 B.c., 18 B.c. and A.d. 9; the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis (18 B.c., but no doubt in the air for some time previously) gave to fathers of adulteresses the right to put to death both guilty parties. Thirdly, ‘arma...impia’ (612–13) is an obvious reference to civil war (cf. Geo. 1.511–14; Aen. 1.294–6), which as Servius argues is more narrowly defined by ‘nee veriti dominorum fallere dextras’ (613) so as to exclude Caesar and Octavian: undoubtedly the allusion is to the war against Sextus Pompeius, which Augustan propaganda chose to represent as a war against runaway slaves. Virgil continues by sketching the penalties paid in Tartarus by such men (614–17). While doing so, however, he retreats once again into the realm of mythology: the punishments he describes are those more normally associated with Sisyphus and Ixion (rolling a stone uphill, suspension on a wheel). This reversion is completed at 617–20 where, confusingly, Virgil denies that he has been alluding to events of contemporary significance by naming two mythical personages, Theseus and Phlegyas (the father of Ixion). Virgil therefore implies, but then denies, contemporary relevance. It is this kind of protean elusiveness (most marked, perhaps, in the Eclogues) which makes the contemporary allusions in Virgil so difficult to pin down.
important omission, because there are very few cross-references between contributors in this volume. Fortunately, the lengthy index locorum (pp. 197-201) partly compensates for this editorial oversight, since it easily shows which Lucilian fragments are discussed by which contributors (there is no index rerum). Furthermore, instead of a general bibliography at the end of the volume, there are individual lists of books and articles at the end of each paper; this choice may have allowed for a more speedy publication of the conference's proceedings but has also created unnecessary bibliographical repetition of the standard Lucilian editions and some frequently cited studies on Lucilius. But these are trivial misgivings when compared to the striking absence of an editorial introduction discussing the perils of constructing 'Identität' (let alone 'Alterität') out of the scanty remains of a poet devoted to the elusive and •exible genre of Roman satire. Can I µnd the 'real' Lucilius amongst isolated one-or two-line statements, which may have been made ironically or may have enabled Lucilius merely to strike a pose or may have been uttered by a character other than Lucilius in a µctional context of questionable relation to reality? Would I µnd the 'real' Lucilius even in a complete poem narrated in the µrst person singular? Why should I assume that ostensibly explicit statements found in fragments such as 671-2 M = 650-1 W = 656-7 K ('publicanus vero ut Asiae µam, ut scripturarius / pro Lucilio, id ego nolo, et uno hoc non muto omnia')-a couplet that occurs at the beginning of the editorial 'Vorwort' and is discussed by no fewer than three contributors-clearly reveal Lucilius' sense of 'Stolz', and demonstrate that he was well-aware of his 'Individualität'?
We think of Cicero as an oratorical genius, a master of persuasion, and the supremely successful Roman advocate-a man who could, as he himself boasted, throw dust in the eyes of a jury. 1 It is true that he was not quite as invincible as people sometimes imagine: we know of thirty-three acquittals that he secured, but also of nine criminal cases that he lost (naturally, he did not as a rule publish his failures, so it is the successes that stick in the mind). But even so, his reputation for forensic success cannot be taken away from him. His pre-eminence is indicated not just by the number of acquittals, but by the high status 2 of those who sought his services (not always successfully) and by the political rewards that came to him as a result of his work at the bar. But his success in the courts did not come exclusively from his powers of persuasion and the brilliance of his oratory: it also came from factors external to the case. Most obviously, his success in any particular case might arise in part from the political situation which prevailed at the time. For instance, he himself tells us that he won the Murena case because, with Catiline in the field, Rome needed to have two consuls in place on 1 January 62 (Flac. 98; cf. Quint. Inst. 6.1.35). His performance in court (aside from his emphasis of the factor just mentioned) was less important, and in fact Plutarch tells us that on this occasion it fell short of his usual standard (Plut. Cic. 35.3). On the other hand, he lost the Milo case partly because the facts were so heavily against him but partly, also, because Pompey wanted Milo convicted. 3 In this paper I should like to consider a further external factor that may have been important in determining Cicero's success, but has not apparently been recognized as such: his support for the equites. It will not be necessary for our purposes to enter into the much debated question of the definition of the equites; 4 but it may be advisable to consider for a moment whether it is meaningful to talk in this way of 'the equites' as a group. Clearly, if the equites had nothing whatsoever in common except receipt of the public horse or possession of a
The Catilinarians are a set of four speeches that Cicero, while consul in 63 BC, delivered before the senate and the Roman people against the conspirator Catiline and his followers. Or are they? Cicero did not publish the speeches until three years later, and he substantially revised them before publication, rewriting some passages and adding others, all with the aim of justifying the action he had taken against the conspirators and memorializing his own role in the suppression of the conspiracy. How, then, should we interpret these speeches as literature? Can we treat them as representing what Cicero actually said? Or do we have to read them merely as political pamphlets from a later time? This first book-length discussion of these famous speeches clarifies what the speeches actually are and explains how we should approach them. In addition, the book contains a full and up-to-date account of the Catilinarian conspiracy and a survey of the influence that the story of Catiline has had on writers such as Sallust and Virgil, Ben Jonson and Henrik Ibsen, from antiquity to the present day.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.