The Manipulative Cicero

Cicero is viewed as a master of rhetoric. As Catherine Steel said, “Rhetoric was the object of profound meditation throughout Cicero’s life.” (2013) Arguably it is the one thing that made him successful as a politician. In this essay will be looking at Cicero’s second Oratio In Catilinem and the ways in which Cicero uses Rhetoric to persuade his audience to look beyond reason and simply believe everything he says.

There is not a single conservable misdeed that Cicero does not accuse Catiline of. In fact, the only thing Cicero does not accuse Catiline of is of being a good man:

For imagine every type of criminality and wickedness that you can think of; he has      been behind them all. In the whole of Italy there not one single poisoner, gladiator, robber, assassin, parricide, will-forger, cheat, glutton, wastrel, adulterer, prostitute, corrupter of youth or youth who has been corrupted, indeed any nasty individual of any kind whatever, who would not be obliged to admit he has been Catiline’s intimate. Cicero.Oratio In Catilanam 2.7

“All of Italy” Cicero? “Every nasty Individual”? Do you not think that you are laying it on a bit thick Cicero? Well, of course he is. It simply is impossible that Catiline could be responsible for every single misdeed that had been committed in Italy nor could he have been intimate with each and every one of these characters mentioned by Cicero. Even if Catiline could be a hundred or even a thousand places at one he simply would not have been able to do what Cicero suggested he had done. It is clear that Cicero is using Rhetoric to convince the audience that Catiline is an absolutely immoral character. In this instance, he makes use of hyperbole to convince his audience of this fact. why should Cicero go to such lengths to convince his audience of this fact? The answer is very simple it is in his best interests. Catiline is Cicero’s enemy and it would therefore make sense for him make the people think as little of Catiline as they possibly can so that they too could see Catiline as there enemy. Catiline also has become a convenient scapegoat for all the problems going on in Rome.

Cicero claims that he has allowed Catiline to escape. In fact, he claimed that Catiline’s escape was part of his plan. He said that letting Catiline escape would give him the chance to find and get rid of Catiline’s fellow conspirators. Of course, this does not make any sense whatsoever. Catiline’s escape would not make finding his fellow conspirators any easier and why would Cicero willingly have allowed Catillina escape. Why would Cicero rather have Catiline on the loose potentially hatching a new plot against him than having him in his custody. The fact that Cicero would claim that letting Catiline go free was part of plan would make sense. Since this would make things seem as if he has everything under control. He would not want his audience to doubt his capabilities. Cicero at the same time warns his audience against Catiline and undermines Catiline, by saying how week his forces are. He compares his forces with gladiators and bandits: therefor claiming that they are not a serious threat. Cicero has an extremely clever way of getting around the fact that he wants to tell his audience to guard against Catiline on the one hand and to tell them that he is no serious threat on the other. Cicero names all the classes in order. For each of these classes he mentions some immoral things that are taking place within that particular class group. Upon reaching the last class he says that this immorality is a breeding ground for more Catiline’s. In doing so he is effectively killing two birds with one stone. He convinces the audience that they should guard themselves against Catiline and anyone like him and he is posing a warning to Catiline’s followers. This is an interesting and elaborate way for Cicero to bring his message over seeing as it does convince the people to guard themselves against Catiline without highlighting him as a serious threat. There are two things that one should not in paragraphs where he names all the immoral things that are happening in each class. One is that he never mentions the equestrian class and the other is that he highlights the lowest class as Catiline’s class of choice when it comes to allies. It is interesting that the equestrian class is never mentioned. For this is the class of which the senate is part of. We can therefor conclude that Cicero does not want suspicion to fall on the senate. By saying that Catiline chooses allies form the lowest class he not only undermines Catiline, but also draws attentions away from the senate. Why would Cicero want to draw attention away from the senate? To cover his tracks of course. Cicero has killed some of those that had conspired along with Catiline without a trail. Although this was done with the support of the senate it still was highly illegal. Cicero would not want Roman citizens to question the morality of the senate.

Walter Allen (1938) in his essay “In Defense of Catiline” said:

We have no right to assume suppose that any man, without reasonable cause, ever said to himself quite simply, “I shall begin a conspiracy tomorrow.” And the ancient authorities are very sure that Catiline was not a madman and that he had some redeeming qualities.

The mere fact that someone bothered to write an essay called “In Defense of Catiline” already tells us something. He is not as fiendishly evil as Cicero made him out to be. Then of course no one is as fiendishly evil as Cicero made him out to be. Walter Allen uncountably is correct. Catiline would have had a reason for doing what he was doing. He would not have started a conspiracy simply for the sake of being evil. One thing we have to take note of is that Catiline is not present to defend his case. Which is incredibly convenient for Cicero. He can say whatever he wishes about Catiline without any objections. Cicero not only portrays Catiline as being utterly immoral, but he also portrays himself as being the perfect example of morality. Cicero claims that this entire endeavor was a great risk to his own personal safety as if he willingly took part in something that could cause him harm. Of course, Catiline was planning to assassinate him, but he had no choice in doing something about it, because if he did not do anything he would have been killed. His motives therefor were not only motivated by what is good for the republic. He also was looking at his own safety. Cicero claims that he has actions has prevented a civil war and mentions the recent civil war between Marius and Sulla. Thus, portraying himself as a hero. Rome’s citizens would remember the recent civil war and its terrible outcomes. They would therefore not want something like this to happen again. Not only does Cicero leave out any good qualities Catiline may have he also leaves out all his own bad qualities. He for instance does not even mention the fact that he has killed some of Catiline’s fellow conspirers without a trail. Which of course is highly illegal. It is clear that Cicero is trying to inspire thought of patriotism within his audience. He uses imagery that would be associated with things that would be considered by Rome’s people as symbols of Rome and its greatness. If we take of example one of the lines out of his opening paragraph “This unnatural monster will no longer enjoy the shelters of our walls while scheming to hurl them to the ground.” In this line Cicero not only portrays Catiline as being something horrible and utterly inhumane. He also uses the image of the walls of Rome. Rome’s walls would have been quite a powerful symbol to the Romans. As with any ancient city the walls would have been a symbol of Rome’s security. The thought of destroying these walls would have been appalling to the Romans. Which is exactly why Cicero choosing to use this image.

If we cannot consult this speech for a true account of events due to untruthfulness where might we obtain the real events that transpired. For starters, we could look at how other politicians at the time accounted the event. Their views might be more subjective than that of Cicero. We can also look at Catiline’s own account of events, even though this uncountably would be portrayed in his favor they could still give us a more detailed account if we contrast it to that of Cicero’s. We can also possibly glean some information by looking at Cicero’s private letters. Although they still only portray Cicero’s view they could be more accurate than his speeches. In his letters Cicero would not be trying to sway a crowd in his favor. He would therefore be less inclined to omit information or lie about certain things seeing as he is speaking to a close friend.

Cicero’s speech shows us just how easily one can be made to believe almost anything if only the right words were spoken. It also shows us that if we want to obtain the truth we should not look at one single perspective. It is better to look at many accounts of events if they are available and contrast them with each other to obtain the truth.

Reference List.

Steel, C. 2013 “The Cambridge Companion to Cicero” Cambridge: University Printing House.

Allen, W. 1938 “In Defence of Catiline” The Classical Association of the Middle West and South 34, 70-85

 copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024