M. Tullius Cicero’s Pro Lege Manilia is his first public speech, presented before the populus Romanus in 66 B.C. It is unique in the fact that it has another name, De Imperio Cn. Pompei. Both names are in common use among scholars, nor does one appear to be more favourable. In some way, each title captures the essence of the speech, while the other does so in a different, yet appropriate, way. In a sense, these contrasting titles symbolise the way in which this speech is two-faced, and can leave its reader with multiple impressions and interpretations. Despite claiming to speak Pro Lege Manilia, Cicero capitalises on this opportunity to better his political position by excessively praising Cn. Pompeius.
Since the De Imperio is Cicero’s first
…show more content…
In many ways this is not surprising, since legal speeches have been the basis for Cicero’s reputation up to this point. Cicero describes his subject, de Cn. Pompei singulari eximiaque virtute, as a causa (‘cause, reason, or motive’), a term especially common in forensic oratory. Moreover, Cicero does not lower his rhetorical standards for the rostra, and forms his arguments with structural logic. One of the ways in which he does this is by his use of partitio and tractatio, which he uses frequently. Although Cicero presents an elaborated partitio in this speech, he only includes a partitio in six of his other speeches. A partitio is a statement which divides the speaker’s argument into clear sections, and the tractatio is the explanation of those points in the same order. Cicero provides a partitio for his entire speech: primum mihi videtur de genere belli, deinde de magnitudine, tum de imperatore deligendo esse dicendum (‘It seems to me that should speak first concerning the nature of this war, then about its size, and them about the general which must be chosen’, 3). Cicero follows this with a tractatio, which follows the same order: de genere belli (7-19), de magnitudine belli (20-27), and de imperatore deligendo esse (27-50). Cicero also mimics a legal speech by the entire structure, which contains four rhetorical parts, namely, the Exordium (1-3), the Narratio (4-5), the Confirmatio (6-50), and the Refutatio
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
Mark Antony’s speech, whose aim is to counter Brutus’ speech, enlightens the crowd on the unjust murder of Caesar. Though he never directly communicates to the crowd of his feeling towards the conspirators, Antony was able to effectively convey to the crowd, through the use of verbal irony and other stylistic devices/techniques in his speech, his true views of the assassination. Moreover, Antony was able to shrewdly emphasize his belief of the undeserved assassination of Caesar through the wide use of epiphoral and anaphoral structure in his speech. Antony emphasizes the wrongdoings of Brutus and Cassius through the ingenious use of the epistrophe along with verbal irony as he notes that “I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong” (III, ii, 125). Moreover, he stresses the importance of punishi...
...ee tasks are accomplished can vary to suit the orators purpose or the circumstances surrounding their speech. Cicero does just this and he does it with a purpose. He avoids heavy emotional appeals because they don’t suit the day and go against the relaxed almost careless tone he utilizes throughout the rest of his monologue. He emphasizes the use of persuasive arguments in order to detract from the claims of his opponent in the only way he can (since the case contains no material evidence) and Cicero flatters and entertains the jurors in the hopes that they will view his arguments more favorably. Everything he says and does in this speech of his drive toward his ultimate goal, an acquittal for his client, and from this speech one can see how Cicero not only achieves the three goals he sets forth, but how and why those three goals can and should be adapted at need.
By examining these two different views of Roman politics: Polybius’ The Histories of Polybius and Quintus Cicero’s Handbook on Canvassing for the Consulship as well as examining Plutarch’s Fall of the Roman Republic account on the collapse of the Republic in the lives of Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar it will be clear how friendship, specifically the private ambition of a few citizens and their rivalry for office, was the internal decaying factor that destroyed the Roman Republic. According to Polybius, the Roman Constitution was “the best of any existing in my time” (Polybius 467). He defines friendship as “whoever gives any sign of an inclination to you, or habitually visits your house” (Cicero 37).
The most predominate and important aspect In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare are the speeches given to the Roman citizens by Brutus and Antony, the two main charaters, following the death of Caesar. Brutus and Antony both spoke to the crowd,using the same rhetorical devices to express their thoughts. Both speakers used the three classical appeals employed in the speeches: ethos, which is an appeal to credibility; pathos, which is an appeal to the emotion of the audience; and logos, which is an appeal to the content and arrangement of the argument itself. Even though both speeches have the same structure Antony’s speech is significantly more effective than Brutus’s.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
In Cicero's eyes there were two points of views, natural law and civil law. However, a problem is presented when deciding which law to follow. Natural law, for example, being a sense of right and wrong within humans from birth, a morality that comes naturally. Civil law revolves around human developed concepts that are made up by officials such as a government or king. For instance, execution for being a traitor or an assassin/murderer. "If nature has given us law, she hath also given us right. But she has bestowed reason on all, therefore right has been bestowed on all."(109) This explains that we as humans are born with a specific mindset, in we were born with certain natural laws implanted into our minds. However, on the opposing side, civil law is in which explained here "the dictator should be empowered to put to death with impunity whatever citizens he pleased, without hearing them in their
Antony Kamm ~ The Romans: An Introduction Second Edition, Published in 2008, pages 47, 93
Riggsby, A. M. (n.d.). Cicero Texts. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from University of Texas Classics Department: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Cic.html
As we regained consciousness one by one, we found ourselves on a deserted island. After gathering all the food and supplies we could find, it was decided that certain rules should be enacted so we may live together civilly. We need to maintain our politeness and courtesy as we do not know how long we may be stranded on the island. To preserve what we have left, the first rule that should be enacted must benefit the group as a whole. The rule to have every able bodied individual work to benefit the group. That means that a person must work at gather food, water, build shelter, and any other tasks that are required. This should be the most important rule as it will maintain order and will provide justice in our group.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
Dio, Cassius. "Roman History - Book 50." 17 June 2011. University of Chicago. 31 October 2011 .
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
In this essay I will argue that the ultimate failure of Pompey in his struggle with Julius Caesar was due to Pompey’s lack of risk-taking and his inability to predict Caesar’s strategies. I will then contrast this to Caesar’s riskier strategies which would eventually lead to his triumph over Pompey. I shall cover the major battles, Ilerda, Dyrrhacchium and Pharsalus in order to assess how and why Pompey eventually lost against Caesar.
Pro Caelio is a speech given by Roman politician and famed orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of his former student and now political rival Caelius. Caelius was charged with political violence in the form of the murder of Dio. Caelius’ defense was structured so that Caelius first spoke in his own defense, following him was Crassus, and finally Cicero. Cicero attempted in his defense to not just refute the accusations brought forward by the prosecutors. Instead, he first demonstrates that Caelius is an upstanding citizen and provides many examples to prove this. He further defends Caelius by swaying the jury in his favor through the employment of comedy. Vice versa he turns the jury against the prosecutors through slander (i.e. he constantly