An Ethos of Sincerity: Echoes of Cicero's De Re Publica in the Pro Marcello

Greece & Romehttp://journals.cambridge.org/GAR

Additional services for Greece & Rome:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

An Ethos of Sincerity: Echoes of the De Republicain Cicero's Pro Marcello

Kathryn Tempest

Greece & Rome / Volume 60 / Issue 02 / October 2013, pp 262 - 280DOI: 10.1017/S0017383513000089, Published online: 16 September 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0017383513000089

How to cite this article:Kathryn Tempest (2013). An Ethos of Sincerity: Echoes of the De Republica inCicero's Pro Marcello. Greece & Rome, 60, pp 262-280 doi:10.1017/S0017383513000089

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/GAR, IP address: 188.223.138.118 on 17 Sep 2013

AN ETHOS OF SINCERITY: ECHOES OF THE DE REPUBLICAIN CICERO’S PRO MARCELLO*

The problem of Cicero’s Pro Marcello

In September 46 BC, Cicero delivered a speech in the Senate, praisingthe dictator Caesar for the clemency and wisdom he had shown in par-doning M. Marcellus. The forgiveness of a man who had been, inCaesar’s own words, characterized by particular acerbitas seemed allthe more magnanimous, and Cicero recalls the occasion in a lettersent to his friend, S. Sulpicius Rufus. He was so overwhelmed byCaesar’s generosity, he adds, that he broke a period of self-imposedsilence and spoke at length when he was asked to give his opinion.1

The words he delivered apparently extempore were later writtendown and published, probably quite soon after the event of their deliv-ery.2 It has come down to us as the Pro Marcello,3 and in this speechCicero does not just praise the dictator but also attempts to influenceCaesar, and steer him towards a more republican attitude.4

* Versions of this article were delivered as papers at the Pacific Rim Roman Literature seminar2009 at University College London and at the Classical Association Conference 2010 at Cardiff, inthe panel ‘Roman Constructions: Rhetoric and Historiography’ with Edward Bragg and KathrynWelch. I wish to thank my co-panellists and both audiences for their reactions and helpful com-ments, especially Gesine Manuwald and Jonathan Powell, who have continued discussions withme informally on the points presented. All translations are my own.

1 This summary is largely a paraphrase of Cic. Fam. 4.4.3–4, discussed further below; Cicerohad not spoken publicly for almost six years, and not at all since he had returned to Rome follow-ing the civil war.

2 It has even been suggested that the published text is a stenographic record of the speech thatCicero delivered on the day; thus V. Paladini, Scritti minori (Rome, 1973). I am not convinced bythis suggestion, despite the tentative support it has received from H. C. Gotoff, Cicero’s CaesarianSpeeches (Chapel Hill, NC and London, 1993), xxxiii, who admits that it may have been a possi-bility, given the lack of evidence to suggest that Cicero was involved in its publication. But Gotoffdoes add an important consideration as to why Cicero would have wanted the text transmittedquickly: namely, it was his first formal speech for over seven years. Furthermore, it was Cicero’sgeneral practice to publish orations of current interest quite soon after the moment of their deliv-ery: see J. N. Settle, ‘The Publication of Cicero’s Orations’, unpublished PhD thesis, University ofNorth Carolina (1962), esp. 261–4.

3 On the title, see M. von Albrecht, Cicero’s Style. A Synopsis (Leiden, 2003), 170–1.4 See also H. C. Gotoff, ‘Cicero’s Caesarian Orations’, in J. M. May (ed.), Brill’s Companion to

Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric (Leiden, 2002), 219, 234–5. The structure of the oration reflects thesemixed aims: useful outlines can be found in P. MacKendrick, The Speeches of Cicero (London,

Greece & Rome, 60.2 262–280 © The Classical Association (2013)doi:10.1017/S0017383513000089

But, aswith any speech delivered before an autocratic ruler, large ques-tions arise whenwe consider the question of the speaker’smotives and hissincerity, for the lavish compliments paid to Caesar, especially in the firstthird of the oration (Marcell. 4–12), evoke different and often completelyopposing interpretations frommodern readers.5 Elizabeth Rawson statesthat, however grandiloquent his speech, Cicero is ‘entirely sincere’ in thePro Marcello.6 Yet others find it difficult to reconcile the praise of the dic-tator Caesar with Cicero’s known feelings towards tyrants and tyranny;R. G. M Nisbet is perhaps representative of a generation of critics inclaiming that ‘The flattery of the Pro Marcello leaves a nasty taste in themouth’.7 R. R. Dyer has gone so far as to argue that Cicero cannot poss-ibly be sincere and that the speech is heavily figured; according to thisview, whatever the context and purpose of the delivered speech, the pub-lished speech incites its readers towards tyrranicide.8 Leaving asideunhelpful speculations about the relationship between the deliveredand the published versions, however, this extreme explanation shouldbe treatedwith somecaution.AsMichaelWinterbottomhas convincinglydemonstrated, Cicero’s sentiments in the Pro Marcello are generally con-sistent with those expressed in his private letters at the time.9 This shouldnot be taken to imply that Cicero is as sincere in the Pro Marcello asRawson believes (Winterbottom is clear on this point); but it does offersuggestive proof that he was being neither hypocritical nor deceitful.10

Indeed, for those wanting to defend Cicero against the charge of dis-simulation, signs of his sincerity may be found in a comment in theletter he sent to S. Sulpicius Rufus describing the event:

1995), 406–8; and M. Winterbottom, ‘Believing the Pro Marcello’, in J. F. Miller, C. Damon andK. S. Myers (eds.), Vertis in Usum. Studies in Honor of E. Courtney (Munich, 2002), 31, n. 13.

5 Fuller introductions to the problem of the Pro Marcello and the scholarly debate surrounding itcan be found in Gotoff (n. 4), and A. Tedeschi, Lezione de buon governo per un dittatore. Cicerone,Pro Marcello, saggio di commento (Bari, 2005), 7–30. For an excellent overview of the interpretativedifficulties of the Pro Marcello and the processes involved, see J. Dugan, ‘Cicero and the Politics ofAmbiguity: Interpreting the Pro Marcello’, in C. Steel and H. Van Der Blom (eds.), Community andCommunication: Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome (Oxford, 2013), 211–25.

6 E. Rawson, Cicero. A Portrait (London, 1975), 219.7 R. G. M. Nisbet, ‘The Speeches’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Cicero (London, 1964), 75.8 R. R.Dyer, ‘Rhetoric and Intention inCicero’sProMarcello’, JRS 80 (1990), 17–30;Dyer’s argu-

ment is taken further by P. Gagliardi, Il dissenso e l’ironia. Per una rilettura delle orazioni ‘cesariane’ diCicerone (Naples, 1997). In dating the publication of the Pro Marcello to 45 BC, after the death ofM. Marcellus, she suggests that the speech, like all the Caesarian orations, is entirely ironic.

9 Winterbottom (n. 4). Also contra Dyer’s ironic reading (n. 8), see D. S. Levene, ‘God andMan in the Classical Latin Panegyric’, PCPhS 43 (1997), 66–103, esp. 68–9.

10 Winterbottom (n. 4), 33–4, 38.

AN ETHOS OF SINCERITY 263

noli quaerere: ita mihi pulcher hic dies visus est ut speciem aliquam viderer videre quasi revi-viscentis rei publicae. itaque, cum omnes ante me rogati gratias Caesari egissent praeterVolcatium (is enim, si eo loco esset, negavit se facturum fuisse), ego rogatus mutavi meum con-silium; nam statueram, non mehercule inertia sed desiderio pristinae dignitatis in perpetuumtacere. fregit hoc meum consilium et Caesaris magnitudo animi et senatus officium.

Ask no more: that day seemed so fine to me, I imagined I saw some vision of the respublica rising, as it were, from the dead. And so, when all those called upon to speakbefore me had expressed their thanks to Caesar except Volcatius (he said he wouldnot have done it if he were in Caesar’s position), my name was called and I changedmy mind; for I had decided to remain silent forever, not out of laziness, let me say,but out of longing for my former station. This plan of mine was shattered byCaesar’s magnanimity and the Senate’s dutifulness. (Fam. 4.4.3–4)

From this we may infer that Cicero’s hopes for the res publica werefuelled by a vision of its revival. Even allowing for a certain amountof self-justification in the letter, it is possible that Cicero saw the oppor-tunity to regain some form of political influence. For this was not thefirst time that he had expressed his belief that the constitution couldbe restored; in a letter to Varro in April the same year (46 BC),Cicero had even suggested his readiness, if called upon, to join in thework of rebuilding it.11 Those who read the speech from this perspectivehence skip over the problem of Cicero’s sincerity, and attach mostimportance to the political agenda that he sets forth in the latter partof the oration.12

But this cannot be the end of the story. By the fourth century AD

there was already a train of thought that questioned the sincerity ofCicero’s fulsome praise and believed instead that there was an under-lying current of criticism. According to a frequently cited commentby the Gronovian scholiast, ‘Many think that this speech is heavilyfigured, and they explain it as if it contains more blame than praise’(plerique putant figuratam esse istam orationem, et sic exponuit quasi plusvituperationis habeat quam laudis; Stangl 295–6). However, the scholiastdismisses this interpretation: ‘This suits neither the times nor Caesar.

11 Thus e.g. ‘If someone wants to call us in, not just as architects but even as workmen, to helpbuild the res publica, we shall not refuse, indeed we shall hasten to it cheerfully’ (non deesse si quisadhibere volet, non modo ut architectos verum etiam ut fabros, ad aedificandum rem publicam, et potiuslibenter accurrere; Cic. Fam. 9.2.5).

12 This is the approach taken, in particular, by many biographers. Thus e.g. D. Stockton, Cicero.A Political Biography (Oxford, 1971), 273: ‘It [the Pro Marcello] starts awkwardly and ponderously;but gradually he [Cicero] moves into his old stride, and words and ideas begin to flow freely againas he leaves the formal phrases of thanks behind him and warms to his favourite theme of the ResPublica and the need for constitutional reconstruction.’

AN ETHOS OF SINCERITY264

For the time is such that Caesar may be encouraged towards clemencyby sincere praise, and Caesar is not the sort of orator who can bedeceived’ (hoc nec temporibus convenit nec Caesari. nam et tempus taleest ut vera laude Caesar inducatur ad clementiam et Caesar orator est quinon possit falli; ibid.). What this means, according to the scholiast, isthat the speech would have failed had Caesar realized he was being cri-ticized; hence Cicero’s praise must have been sincere praise (laus vera).

However, in focusing on the problem of Cicero’s actual sincerity, a fun-damental part of Cicero’s rhetorical challenge in the Pro Marcello has beenoverlooked: that is, the challenge facing Cicero as he delivered his firstspeech since the civil war and his very public praise to a man whom hehad opposed in that war, and whose autocratic power he doubtless stillviewed with some misgiving.13 Important steps in this direction havebeen made in recent scholarship as studies have begun to focus moreon Cicero’s persona, agenda, and persuasive strategies in the speech.14

Indeed, a consensus appears to have been emerging over the past few dec-ades that the speech is a political suasoria:15 praise is thus combined withprotreptic,16 and even admonition.17 Cicero is therefore deferent towardsCaesar (‘if I may speak by your leave’, pace dicam tua; Marcell. 4), yet hesimultaneously insists that his ability to speak frankly has been renewed(‘this day marks the beginning of my former custom of expressing my

13 For a discussion of the problems that Cicero faced as a politician struggling to adapt to thenew circumstances, see e.g. J. Hall, ‘Serving the Times: Cicero and Caesar the Dictator’, inW. Dominik, J. Garthwaite, and P. Roche (eds.), Writing Politics in Imperial Rome (Leiden,2009), 89–110, esp. 103 ff.

14 On Cicero’s character as an advisor, see M. Fusco, ‘From Auditor to Actor: Cicero’sDramatic Use of Personae in the Exordium’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago(1988), 192–228; on his agenda and persuasive strategies, see Gotoff (n. 4), 219–71.

15 G. Cipriani, ‘La Pro Marcello e il suo significato come orazione politica’, Atene e Roma 22(1977), 113–25. Other studies that have focused on Cicero’s political agenda in the Pro Marcelloare: M. Rambaud, ‘Le Pro Marcello el l’insinuation politique’, Caesarodonum 19 (1984), 43–56;G. Dobesch, ‘Politische Bemerkungen zu Ciceros Rede pro Marcello’, in E. Weber and G.Dobesch (eds.), Römische Geschichte. Festschrift A. Betz (Vienna, 1985), 153–231. Linked to thisis the argument that the speech is also a speculum principis – a didactic work that seeks to instructthe ruler in how he ought to behave; thus S. Rochlitz, Das Bild Caesars in Ciceros OrationesCaesarianae. Untersuchungen zur clementia und sapientia Caesaris (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1993), esp.79–102.

16 On this point, see S. Morton Braund, ‘Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric:Cicero, Seneca, Pliny’, in M. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric inLate Antiquity (Leiden, 1998), 54–76, reprinted in R. Rees (ed.), Latin Panegyric (Oxford,2012), 85–108.

17 Thus von Albrecht (n. 3), 171–2; B. A. Krostenko, ‘Style and Ideology in the Pro Marcello’, inK. Welch and T. W. Hillard (eds.), Roman Crossings. Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic(Swansea, 2005), 283–316; K. Tempest, ‘Hellenistic Oratory at Rome: Cicero’s Pro Marcello’,in C. Kremmydas and K. Tempest (eds.), Hellenistic Oratory. Continuity and Change (Oxford,2013), 295–318.


hopes and opinions’, hodiernus dies attulit. . .initium quae vellem quaeque sen-tirem meo pristino more dicendi; Marcell. 1).

The affectation of parrhesia in these lines is an essential part of Cicero’sself-presentation. As Harold C. Gotoff has convincingly shown, Ciceroassumes the persona of a political advisor throughout the Pro Marcello,and he uses this feature of the speech to explain how Cicero could com-bine his praise with arguments that may otherwise have seemed ‘unwel-come’, such as the praise of Marcellus, his defence of the Pompeians ingeneral, or the pressing urgency with which he exhorts Caesar to restorethe republic.18 And yet, if we accept that textual analyses will reveal at besthow Cicero wanted his audience to perceive him, it should be clear thatthere is still work to be done on understanding precisely how Cicerocould project this persona in a manner that was both persuasive and cred-ible: that is to say, how he could create an ethos of sincerity.19

When we review the evidence of the Grovonian scholiast and Cicero’sletter to S. Sulpicius Rufus, we can see that both sources appear to pointtowards this very dilemma. To begin with, the scholiast himself dis-misses the suggestion that the speech is ‘figured’, on the grounds that‘it suits neither the times nor Caesar’ (nec temporibus convenit necCaesari, cited above). In order to succeed in winning Caesar’s pardonfor more of his Republican comrades, as he later went on to do,Cicero needed to convince Caesar that his support was sincerely offered.Secondly, in the same letter in which Cicero expresses his vision of therepublic’s revival, he admits that he had also spoken to avoid the dicta-tor’s displeasure, ‘who might be led to think that I do not consider thecurrent constitution a res publica, if I were to maintain my silence for-ever’ (qui fortasse arbitraretur me hanc rem publicam non putare si perpetuotacerem; Fam. 4.4.4). In other words, Cicero also needed to assureCaesar that he did not perceive the current regime as unconstitutionaland to speak in a manner that maintained that impression.

In short, the problem of the Pro Marcello is this: Cicero needed topresent a credible persona as he publicly voiced his commitment toCaesar for the first time. Furthermore, he also needed to urge Caesarto restore constitutional freedom without openly branding the

18 Gotoff (n. 4).19 On the anxieties of appearing sincere, albeit in a different period and under different circum-

stances, see the illuminating discussion by S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience. Theatricality andDoublespeak from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1994), esp. ch. 5, ‘The Art ofSincerity: Pliny’s Panegyricus’, reprinted in Rees (n. 16), 148–93.


dictator’s present behaviour ‘un-republican’. Hence, I suggest, thequestion should not be whether Cicero was, in fact, sincere. Rather,we should ask: how did Cicero persuade Caesar that he was sincere,and how did he employ ethos to that effect?

These are the questions that I seek to address in this article, for,although the important role of ethical arguments in Cicero’s speecheshas been well documented by James M. May, he neglects to discussthe Pro Marcello at all. A justification for this omission may be foundin his conclusion that Cicero’s own personality had to ‘move into thebackground’ in his later speeches, and that it operated under the sha-dows of mightier men.20 But if this statement is partially true of thefirst half of the Pro Marcello,21 in which Cicero first expresses his elab-orate praise of Caesar (Marcell. 4–12) and then offers a defence againsthis and his comrades’ actions in supporting Pompey (Marcell. 13–20), itdoes not explain the confidence with which Cicero presents himself inthe latter half of the oration (Marcell. 21–34). For it is here in particularthat he assumes the persona of a reliable political advisor to the dicta-tor; and he must rely on ethos to persuade Caesar to this end.

The argument presented here is that Cicero utilized allusions to hisown De republica to project his persona convincingly, and that in sodoing he managed both to preserve his self-image as the Republicanspokesman par excellence, and to reconcile it with his position inCaesar’s autocracy. In the next section, I shall therefore provide thebackground for understanding the central tenets of the De republicabefore analysing, in the final section, how echoes of this treatise areembedded within the argumentation of the Pro Marcello.

The philosophical background: Cicero’s De republica22

Five years before the Pro Marcello was delivered, in 51 BC, Cicero hadpublished his De republica, and there is evidence to suggest that it

20 J. M. May, Trials of Character. The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos (Chapel Hill, NC, andLondon, 1988), 165.

21 I say ‘partially’ because Cicero’s character is clearly thrown into the spotlight in the exordium(Marcell. 1–4), where he comments on his long-held silence and connects the pardon of Marcelluswith his own political rehabilitation. At Marcell. 14–15, too, Cicero comments on his promotion ofpeace during the civil war, an attitude which he also ascribes to Marcellus at Marcell. 16.

22 Quotations from the Latin text are taken from J. G. F. Powell,M. Tulli Ciceronis. De republica.De legibus (Oxford, 2006) (OCT); in passages where there may be some room for doubt, I also citefrom K. Ziegler, Cicero. De republica (Leipzig, 1992 [1915]) (Z).


received immediate acclaim. To judge from the letter of Caelius, sent toCicero later the same year, it was being read widely by men of all pol-itical inclinations (Fam. 8.1.4). And while the De republica does notpurport to be a political manifesto, as reflected by the choice of a dia-logue form, nevertheless certain points are made with a sufficient levelof conviction that it is possible to build a largely coherent picture ofCicero’s political philosophy. Even in its fragmentary state, then, anumber of key notions arise.23

The first of these is that the res publica should be immortal: it wasnever dead but could be revived. Much of Book 1 of the De republicais devoted to a discussion on the best form of state (Rep. 1.38–71), con-cluding ultimately that the mixed constitution is the superior (Rep.1.69). Scipio’s speech, which dominates the debate, consequentlybears a striking resemblance to that of the Greek historian Polybius(Polyb. 6.3–18), as well as to ideas of the mixed constitution goingback to Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others. However, there isa significant difference: unlike Polybius’ version of the mixed consti-tution, whose cycle through the simple constitutions is fixed and inflex-ible, Cicero’s version, put into the mouth of Scipio, makes itabundantly clear that there is no set order of change:

sic tamquam pilam rapiunt inter se rei publicae statum tyranni ab regibus, ab eis autem prin-cipes aut populi, a quibus aut factiones aut tyranni; nec diutius umquam tenetur idem rei pub-licae modus

Power over the state is snatched like a ball between players: tyrants take it from kings,aristocrats or the people then take it from them, and from them it moves either to oli-garchical factions or tyrants; nor is it ever held by the same type of constitution for long.

(Rep. 1.68).24

As we shall see more clearly below, it is the task of the wise statesman toprotect the constitution from suffering these changes, and indeedScipio is made to suggest that ‘such changes will not easily take placein the best type of state’ (etsi minime facile eas in ea re publica futuras;Rep. 1.65). In fact, later in the dialogue, Cicero even makes Laelius

23 For a recent attempt to piece together Cicero’s overall message in the De republica, see J.G. F. Powell, ‘Cicero’s De re publica and the Virtues of the Statesman’, in W. Nicgorski (ed.),Cicero’s Practical Philosophy (Notre Dame, IN, 2012), 14–42.

24 The reference is to the Roman game of trigon, in which the ball was passed among the playersin a random order; thus J. G. F. Powell, ‘Were Cicero’s Laws the Laws of Cicero’s Republic?’, in J.G. F. Powell and J. A North (eds.), Cicero’s Republic (London, 2001), 17–39. My discussion here isindebted to his article, especially pp. 24–5.


state that the res publica is immortal: ‘Death is not natural for the state,as it is for a human being’ (nullus interitus est rei publicae naturalis, uthominis; Rep. 3.33 OCT= 3.34 Z).25

The second notion is that in times of emergency the ‘ideal’ statesmanshould steer the res publica through its perils. What protects the consti-tution from the changes outlined in De republica 1.65–8 is the wisdomto foresee and prevent them; this calls for a great and almost divine man(Rep. 1.45). This is the first appearance in the text of Cicero’s rector reipublicae, a topic to which much scholarly attention has been dedicated,but which, it has been argued, equates simply with our notion of a ‘pro-fessional statesman’.26 Thus it is not a political office, nor is the rector adictator or other autocratic ruler; rather he is the ideal statesman who,by his wisdom (sapientia or prudentia), serves somehow to preserve themixed constitution. This topic was clearly subjected to a much fullerlevel of analysis in Book 6 of the De republica, for the fragments that sur-vive up to the beginning of the somnium Scipionis (Rep. 6.13–33 OCT=6.9–29 Z) consider the duties, virtues, and role of the statesman in acrisis.

The third key notion is that morality is integral to the revival of the respublica; it falls on the rector to ensure that the state is well ordered. In afragment of the De republica, quoted by Cicero in a letter to Atticus,Cicero refers to his belief that the aim of the ideal statesman shouldbe directed at the greatest good:

ut enim gubernatori cursus secundus, medico salus, imperatori victoria, sic huic moderatori reipublicae beata civium vita proposita est, ut opibus firma, copiis locuples, gloria ampla, virtutehonesta sit.

Just as the captain’s aim is a successful journey, the doctor’s health, the general’s vic-tory, so the aim of our ideal statesman is the citizens’ happy life, that is a life secure inwealth, rich in resources, abundant in glory, and honoured for its virtue. That is thetask I want him to perfect, the greatest and best there is among men.

(Att. 8.11.1=Rep. 5.8)

25 Elsewhere Cicero makes Laelius say that ‘our state could live on forever, if our ancestralprinciples and customs continue to thrive’ (quae poterat esse perpetua si patriis viveretur institutis etmoribus; Rep. 3.41).

26 Although Cicero expresses this ideal through a variety of words in the De Republica, it isalways with the sense of a leading statesman. Other references can be found at Rep. 2.45, 51,67–9; 5.9; 6.1. For discussion, see W. W. How, ‘Cicero’s Ideal in his De re publica’, JRS 20(1930), 24–42, esp. 40–1; J. G. F. Powell, ‘The rector rei publicae of Cicero’s De Republica’,SCI 13 (1994), 19–29; J. –L. Ferrary, ‘The Statesman and the Law in the Political Philosophyof Cicero’, in A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Socialand Political Philosophy (Cambridge, 1995), 48–73, esp. 52–3.


Thus it is the statesman’s duty to guard the citizens’ beata vita, and thiscan be achieved ‘partly by inherited customs and partly by laws’ (partiminstitutis, alia legibus; Rep. 4.3).27 Marriage, legitimate children, and reli-gious practices are all essential in a well-ordered state (Rep. 3.3 OCT=5.6–7 Z), which in turn guarantees the citizens’ wellbeing (Rep. 4.3).28

Finally, Cicero puts forward the idea that the best citizen owes a dutytowards the country above all other duties, and that the rewards are sig-nificant, both in this life and in the life to come. Since the task of theideal statesman is to protect the welfare of the state’s citizens, andbecause their happiness can only be guaranteed within a good state,it follows that the ideal statesman cannot retire from public life. Infact, much of what survives of the preface to Book 1 is a polemic againstphilosophic, and particularly Epicurean, recommendations againstpublic life (Rep. 1.4–11). Rather, Cicero argues, men owe a duty totheir country (Rep. 1.8), and good statesmen are offered rewards thatare more lasting than statues and triumphs (Rep 6.12 OCT= 6.8 Z):‘for all those who have either saved, helped, or enhanced their country,a special place has been set aside in heaven, where they may enjoy a lifeof eternal blessedness’ (omnibus qui patriam conservaverint adiuverintauxerint, certum esse in caelo definitum locum, ubi beati aevo sempiternofruantur; Rep. 6.13).

Creating an ethos of sincerity in the Pro Marcello

Cicero often used the precepts of the De republica as a standard bywhich he could evaluate both his own political performance and thatof his contemporaries.29 It was, after all, as he described it in a letterto his brother Quintus, a treatise ‘on the best condition of the stateand the best citizen’ (de optimo statu ciuitatis et de optimo ciue; Cic. Q.

27 The full quotation reads: ‘Consider, now, how wisely other provisions have been made forthat partnership of citizens in a happy and honourable life: for that is the main reason for men com-ing together, and it should be accomplished for them by the state, partly by established customs,partly by laws’ (Considerate nunc cetera quam sint provisa sapienter ad illam civium beate et honestevivendi societatem: ea est prima causa coeundi, et id hominibus effici ex republica debet, partim institutisalia legibus).

28 The reinforcement of moral standards, especially through the threat of ignominia, is also dis-cussed in the extant fragments of Book 4; see J. E. G. Zetzel: ‘Citizen and Commonwealth in De republica’, in Powell and North (n. 24), 83–97, esp. 90–1.

29 See e.g. Cic. Att 7.3.2 (on his own performance); at Cic. Att. 8.11, written in February 49,Cicero states that neither Caesar nor Pompey has behaved according to the criteria he has set forthe ideal statesman.


Fr. 3.5.1). Hence it is highly likely that he had this text in mind as hewas forced to consider afresh the nature of the res publica underCaesar’s dictatorship, as well as its possible revival thereafter.30 Onceone starts to look for echoes of the De republica in the Pro Marcello, how-ever, they begin to stand out with a level of prominence that requiressome explanation. In fact, I would suggest that they expose a desireon Cicero’s part to display an ethos possessed of enough experienceto advise Caesar on matters of state, and enough sincerity to be a trust-worthy advisor. Cicero’s political treatise thus acts as an intertext forthe speech, with the result that ‘Cicero’ in the Pro Marcello is madeto speak like ‘Cicero’, the author of the De republica.

The allusions are most strongly evident in the second half of thePro Marcello, in which Cicero turns his attention to the future; for itis here that he urges Caesar to restore the res publica and to takethought both for his duty and for lasting glory. This section startsas Cicero dramatically turns to refute Caesar’s fears over rumoursof an alleged conspiracy against his life (Marcell. 21–3).31 To beginwith, he attempts to allay Caesar’s concern with the rather speciousargument that he has no opponents left to fear(!), before comfortinghim with the thought that all men now realize that their own survivalis dependent on his:

nam quis est omnium tam ignarus rerum, tam rudis in re publica, tam nihil umquam nec desua nec de communi salute cogitans, qui non intellegat tua salute contineri suam et ex unius tuavita pendere omnium? equidem de te dies noctisque, ut debeo, cogitans casus dumtaxat huma-nos et incertos eventus valetudinis et naturae communis fragilitatem extimesco, doleoque, cumres publica immortalis esse debeat, eam in unius mortalis anima consistere.

For who on earth is so ignorant of affairs, so inexperienced in politics, so completelythoughtless either for his own safety or that of the community, that he does not realizehis own safety is dependent on yours and that on you alone hang the lives of all men?To be sure as I think about you day and night, as I ought, I fear for the misfortunes ofmankind and the uncertain outcomes of health and the frailty of our common nature,and I mourn that, while the res publica ought to be immortal, its existence rests on onemortal man. (Marcell. 22)

30 As noticed, for example, by E. Lepore, Il princeps ciceroniano e gli ideali politici della tardarepubblica (Naples, 1954), 357: ‘Le orazione cesariane, a cominciare dalla pro marcello. . .respiranoancora nel clima dottrinale del De re publica’ (‘The Caesarian orations, beginning with the ProMarcello. . .still breathe the doctrinal air of the De republica’).

31 Cicero may well have in mind here the plot of which he later accused Antony at Phil. 2.74; cf.Plut. Vit. Caes. 57.7; thus also Winterbottom (n. 4), 32, n. 17.


Cicero openly admits, therefore, that he has feelings of fear (extimesco)and grief (doleo) at the current state of affairs. When this passage is readagainst the contents of the De republica, however, these statementsappear to be genuine reflections on the ideal permanence of the consti-tution, combined with the tacit admission that there are pitfalls inretaining its stability. But now the reflective comment of the De repub-lica (‘death is not natural for the state, as it is for a human being’, nullusinteritus est rei publicae ut hominis) has been replaced by the more regret-ful expression doleoque, cum res publica immortalis esse debeat, eam inunius mortalis anima consistere.

Critics of the speech are doubtless right to detect a ‘sting’ in this lastsentence: paranomasia (immortalis/mortalis), oxymoron (res publica/unus), and the use of the verb debeo all serve to emphasize the gapbetween the ideal and reality.32 But the parenthetical remark, cum respublica immortalis esse debeat, also conveys a tone of resignation, a resig-nation which seems natural in the context of the De republica, where, aswe have seen, the ideal statesman should steer the res publica through itsperils in a crisis. It is clear that Cicero’s head was full of the romanticnotion of a powerful saviour upon whom the safety of the statedepended; at times he may have seen himself in that role,33 or at theleast as the saviour’s advisor, ‘playing Laelius Sapiens to a modernScipio Africanus’, as Gotoff puts it.34 But the important point to noteis that, in the famous scene of Scipio’s dream, Cicero had alreadymade the phantom of the elder Africanus use precisely this same para-dox to encourage Scipio Aemilianus to restore the res publica: ‘you[Scipio] will be the one upon whom the safety of the state rests, andin brief, it will fall on you as dictator to restore the res publica’ (tueris unus in quo nitatur civitatis salus, ac ne multa dictator rem publicamconstituas oportet; Rep. 6.12). Hence, we need not presume that Caesarwould have felt the ‘sting’ too sharply. Rather, by adapting his philoso-phical reflections on the state of the res publica to the oratorical situ-ation, Cicero reminds Caesar of his credibility and experience as anadvisor. This tactic enables him to introduce his urgent advice toCaesar and thus, picking up from the lead of res publica/unus, he

32 Thus Tedeschi (n. 5), 120; on the ‘sting’ in this sentence, see e.g. Gotoff (n. 4), 231.33 Compare, for example Cicero’s discussion of the ideal citizen at Rep. 2.51 to the description

of his own service to the state during his consulship at Rep. 1.10–11.34 Gotoff (n. 4), 221; the phrase is taken from Cicero’s own suggestion, several years earlier,

that he could play the ‘Sapiens’ to Pompey, who was hence the ‘Scipio’ in the relationship (Cic.Fam. 5.7.3).


continues: ‘It is for you alone, Gaius Caesar, to reanimate all that yousee shattered and laid low, as was inevitable, by the shock of the waritself’ (omnia sunt excitanda tibi, C. Caesar, uni, quae iacere sentis belliipsius impetu, quod necesse fuit, perculsa atque prostrata; Marcell. 23).

The liveliness of the metaphor excitanda is significant because itevokes an image of Caesar shaking the dying res publica back to life.Such an association between Caesar and the res publica can be seenon coinage pertaining to the period 49–44 BC,35 and it may also reflectimages of Roma kneeling at Caesar’s feet.36 Thus Cicero phrases hisappeal to Caesar in terms that carry Caesar’s own ‘propagandistic’message.37 In so doing he manages to align his personal desire for therestoration of the res publica with Caesar’s own agenda, to show thatthey are striving towards the same goal, and even to bind him to it.This strategy of persuasion is further continued as Cicero offers hisexplicit advice on how to restore order within the community: ‘lawcourts must be established, credit restored, licentiousness must bechecked, and the birth rate increased; all that has become disintegratedand dissipated must be knit together by stringent legislation’ (constitu-enda iudicia, revocanda fides, comprimendae libidines, propaganda suboles,omnia, quae dilapsa iam diffluxerunt, severis legibus vincienda sunt;Marcell. 23).

It is important to note here that Cicero’s recommendations refer toreforms that were already being implemented by Caesar, whichmeans that Cicero is not setting forth his own political programme

35 See M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1974), i.89–94 (nos. 442–79), with further discussion at ii.735–7.

36 In particular, a clay relief from the Via Cassia from about this period depicts a woman (oftenidentified with Roma) kneeling at the feet of a victorious general, who is identified with Caesar. S.Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 45–6, offers the interpretation that it depicts Caesar givinghis hand to help raise Roma up from prostration. If this is correct, it suggests that Cicero is adopt-ing an artistic theme of Roma, resurgent with Caesar’s help, and adapting it to an oratoricalcontext.

37 That Cicero enlarges on, corrects, or twists aspects of Caesar’s own self-representation hasbeen noted before, but in different contexts. Thus von Albrecht (n. 3), 171, notes how atMarcell. 7 Cicero qualifies and twists Caesar’s own self-portrait in the Bellum Civile and thestress he places on the value of a general’s consilium; see also von Albrecht’s discussion of howCicero adapts Caesar’s interpretation of dignitas and sapientia (ibid., 168–9). In an unpublishedPhD thesis, Charles E. Ramos suggests that Cicero uses the terms laus and gloria in the ProMarcello to criticize Caesar’s own (selfish) interpretation of these ideals, and steer him insteadtowards a more civic-orientated point of view (‘Politics and Rhetoric: Studies in Cicero’sCaesarian speeches’ [University of Texas, 1994], 132–72). Similarly, Krostenko (n. 17), 292, con-siders how Cicero’s reference to Caesar’s lenitas is used to bind Caesar to a course of mercifulaction.


here, as some have thought.38 As Suetonius explicitly states, such pol-icies had been in place since 49 BC,39 and so praise derives from thefact that progress has already been made. But the systematic approachproposed by Cicero and his call for stringent legislation correspondsneatly to the emphasis placed on morality in the De republica, and inparticular to Cicero’s proviso there that it must be upheld ‘partim insti-tutis, alia legibus’ (‘partly by inherited customs and partly by laws’).40

Indeed, the provisions identified by Cicero in the De republica, as inthe Pro Marcello, constitute a ‘system’ within which marriages, legiti-mate children, and religious practices all occupy a central place: ‘A sys-tem has been provided for the purposes of life and its practical conduct,namely, legal marriages, legitimate children, and sacred shrines belong-ing to the household gods and the family Lares’ (ad vitam autem usum-que vivendi ea descripta ratio est iustis nuptiis, legitimis liberis, sanctisPenatium deorum Larumque familiarium sedibus; Rep. 3.3 OCT= 5.6–7Z).41 Although there are no verbal allusions to confirm the relationshipbetween the two texts in this instance, even so it seems highly likely thatCicero, reflecting on how the res publica might best be revived, wouldcall the central tenets of his De republica to mind. As a result, his advicein the Pro Marcello is neither new nor surprising; rather he commendsCaesar for attempting to implement policies of which he approves, andhe urges him to see them through to completion.

Like a doctor, then, Caesar must heal the wounds of war (tibi nuncomnia belli volnera sananda sunt, quibus praeter te mederi nemo potest;Marcell. 24). The analogy is suggestive of the comparison that Cicerohad already drawn in the De republica: namely, that if the doctor’saim is to heal, so the ideal statesman’s duty is to preserve the state.42

And again we see that, in such instances, the importance of a single

38 See e.g. M. Gelzer, Caesar. Politician and Statesman, trans. P. Needham (Cambridge, MA,1968), 280, who states that ‘the main significance of the speech is that it gives expression toCicero’s own political programme’.

39 For Caesar’s programme of reform, see Suet. Iul. 40–4.40 On the emphasis on morality and these provisions in the De republica, compare the comment

of Augustine: ‘Look at it, I pray, and see how much praise he bestows there on frugality and tem-perance, and on faith in the marital bond, as well as on chaste, honest, and upright customs’(Intuere, obsecro te, et cerne quantis ibi laudibus frugalitas et continentia praedicetur, et erga coniugale vin-culum fides, castique honesti ac probi mores; August. Ep. 91.3).

41 A fragment of the sixth book repeats this point: ‘For our ancestors desired for marriages tobe strongly established’ (Firmiter enim maiores nostri stabilita matrimonia esse voluerunt; Rep. 6.10OCT= 6.2e Z).

42 It is a metaphor that Cicero often uses in this context; thus he employs similar terms to exhortPompey in the Pro Milone: ‘But who does not understand that all the sick and ailing parts of the respublica have been put in your care, so that you can heal and strengthen them by these weapons’


expert is championed, for ‘it is better to entrust a ship to one helmsmanand a sick man to one doctor’ (uni gubernatori, uni medico. . .rectius essealteri navem commitere, aegrum alteri; Rep. 1.62). Likewise, it is the ideaof a wounded res publica, which Caesar alone can heal (quibus praeter temederi nemo potest), that brings Cicero to confront rumours that Caesaris resigned to death:

itaque illam tuam praeclarissimam et sapientissimam vocem invitus audivi: ‘satis diu vel nat-urae vixi vel gloriae.’ satis, si ita vis, fortasse naturae, addam etiam, si placet, gloriae: at, quodmaximum est, patriae certe parum.

And so I was disappointed when I heard that most famous saying of yours, so full ofwisdom: ‘I have lived long enough for nature or for glory.’ Enough perhaps for nature,if you must, and even, I will add, for glory, if you like: but, this is the important point,for your country all too short a span. (Marcell.25)

The sarcasm with which Cicero treats Caesar’s alleged resolve hardlyneeds stressing: the superlatives praeclarissimus and sapientissimusalone indicate that he is speaking with tongue in cheek here.43 Butit is the combination of these superlatives that is important to note,for Cicero’s words strikingly recall those used in the preface toBook 1 of the De republica, as well as the whole spirit of his polemicagainst the philosophic devaluation of civic responsibility. There, wemay recall, Cicero had attacked those who advise against politicallife and he offered, by way of counter-argument and correction, the‘discussion of the most famous and the wisest men in our state ofanother generation’ (unius aetatis clarissimorum ac sapientissi-morum nostrae civitatis virorum disputatio; Rep. 1.13). In the ProMarcello, Cicero cuts short the lengthy refutation of the philosophers’arguments that we find in the De republica, but his self-presentation asan authority on civic responsibility in the treatise serves well toremind us of the stance he may have been seeking to adopt infront of Caesar, too:

quibus de rebus, quoniam nobis contigit ut idem in gerenda re publica aliquid essemus memoriadignum consecuti, et in explicandis rationibus rerum civilium quondam facultatem, <evenitut> non modo usu sed etiam studio discendi et docendi essemus auctores.

(Sed quis non intellegit omnis tibi rei publicae partis aegras et labantis, ut eas his armis sanares et confir-mares, esse commissas, Cic. Mil. 68).

43 As noted, for example, by Gotoff (n. 2), 70, and (n. 4), 232; Tedeschi (n. 5), 129.


I should be an authority in these matters, since I have had the opportunity both toachieve something worthy of record in my public life, and I have some skill at explainingthe principles of civic life, <as it happens> not only from experience but also from mydevotion to studying and teaching. (Rep. 1.13)

Far from approving of Caesar’s ‘wisdom’, then, Cicero corrects hisphilosophical tendencies and attempts to steer him towards a reconsi-deration of what it really means to be a clarus and sapiens statesman.His refutation continues through sections 25–7, and it is here, I believe,that the echoes of the De republica are at their most striking:

qua re omitte, quaeso, istam doctorum hominum in contemnenda morte prudentiam: noli nostropericulo esse sapiens. saepe enim venit ad meas auris te idem istud nimis crebro dicere, satis tetibi vixisse. credo, sed tum id audirem, si tibi soli viveres aut si tibi etiam soli natus esses.

Please, then, discard the wisdom of philosophers in scorning death; do not be wise atour expense. For I often hear that you say the same thing, all too frequently, that as faras you are concerned you have lived long enough. Sure, but I would only accept it if youwere living for yourself alone, or if you had been born for yourself alone.

(Marcell. 25)

To begin with, wemay note that the underlying argument ofDe republica1.4–11 – that a man’s duty is to his country – is echoed in Cicero’s insis-tence that Caesar does not live for himself alone. Shortly afterwards,Cicero even expands this idea to argue that Caesar can only claim tohave discharged his obligations when he has restored the res publica:‘Then and only then, if you wish, when you have paid your debt toyour country, and when you have satisfied nature herself with the fullnessof your life, can you say you have lived long enough’ (tum te, si voles, cumet patriae quod debes solveris, et naturam ipsam expleveris satietate vivendi,satis diu vixisse dicito;Marcell. 27). Not only is Cicero recalling the notionthat the res publica can be revived, but the image of a ‘debt’ harks back tothe opening premise of the De republica: ‘Since our country providesmore benefits, and is an older parent than those who gave birth to us,a greater debt is owed to it than to our parents’ (sic quoniam plura beneficiacontinent patria, et est antiquior parens quam is qui creavit, maior ei profectoquam parenti debetur gratia; Rep. [ fragmenta prooemii], 1).44

44 For the same idea elsewhere, see Rep. 1.8: ‘For our country did not endow us with laws orlife, without expecting to receive some form of reimbursement, as it were, from us’ (neque enim hacnos patria lege genuit aut educavit, ut nulla quasi alimenta exspectaret a nobis). The word alimentaspecifically refers to a reimbursement owed to one’s parents: see J. E. G. Zetzel, Cicero. De re pub-lica (Cambridge, 1995), ad loc.


This expectation receives further attention in the somnium Scipionis,where Scipio Africanus the elder tells Scipio Aemilianus of his dutyto save the res publica (rem publicam constituas oportet; Rep. 6.16 OCT=6.12 Z), having first encouraged him towards such action with thepromise of eternal rewards:

sed quamquam sapientibus conscientia ipsa factorum egregiorum amplissimum virtutis estpraemium, tamen illa divina virtuta non statuas plumbo inhaerentes, nec triumphos are-scentibus laureis, sed stabiliora quaedam et viridiora praemiorum genera desiderat.

For wise men the consciousness of their outstanding deeds is itself the noblest rewardfor their virtue. Moreover, that godlike virtue longs not for statues fixed down by lead,nor for triumphs and their withering laurels, but for more stable and longer-lastingkinds of rewards. (Rep 6.12 OCT= 6.8Z)

In the Pro Marcello, too, Cicero attributes the quality of divina virtus toCaesar, and he uses it to encourage the dictator to redefine his narrowview of gloria: ‘please see to it that your godlike virtue does not accruemore admiration than actual glory’ (vide, quaeso, ne tua divina virtusadmirationis plus sit habitura quam gloria; Marcell. 26). True glory, heexplains, does not lie in defeated opponents (Marcell. 26). Instead,just as Scipio Africanus had urged Scipio Aemilianus in the De repub-lica, Cicero gives Caesar the simple and direct message that he mustsave the res publica (ut rem publicam constituas; Marcell. 27; cf. Rep.6.16 OCT= 6.12 Z). Cicero’s message to Caesar thus looks verymuch like a paraphrase of the words he had made Scipio Africanus deli-ver to Scipio Aemilianus. That this suggestion may be correct can becorroborated by another passage in the Pro Marcello, in which he alsoborrows the idea that political virtues bring more lasting rewards thanmilitary triumphs. For in commending Caesar’s decision to pardonMarcellus, he states that: ‘while the passage of time will bring an endto your trophies and monuments. . .your justice and moderation willflourish daily ever more (ut tropaeis et monumentis tuis adlatura finemsit aetas. . .at haec tua iustitia et lenitas florescet cotidie magis; Marcell. 11).

Indeed, if we look again at the first half of the Pro Marcello in the lightof the evidence presented so far, we see that echoes of the De republicaare already contributing to the larger picture that Cicero builds upthroughout the speech. For the mention of Caesar’s iustitia and lenitasin the quotation above is part of a wider strategy in the speech to con-nect Caesar with the ideology of an ‘ideal ruler’ and encourage him tofill his potential. In two passages in particular Cicero characterizes


Caesar’s lenience towards Marcellus as ‘an act of mercy, mildness, jus-tice, moderation, and wisdom’ (aliquid clementer, mansuete, iuste, moder-ate, sapienter factum; Marcell. 9). These virtues belong to a traditiongoing back to Plato’s identification of four virtues (Resp. 4.427e10–11): phrones̄is (wisdom), andreia (courage), so ̄phrosune ̄ (self-control),and dikaiosune ̄ (justice), which may themselves have provided the struc-tural principle for Cicero’s discussion of the rector rei publicae in the Derepublica.45 But the climatic position given to sapientia anticipates thetheme of the second half of the speech, Caesar’s sapientia.46 This isnot the sapientia of a philosopher but of a statesman, and, in this con-nection, we may recall that in the De republica the best citizen must usethis virtue to protect the res publica from the cycles of political change:

quos cum cognosse sapientis est, tum vero prospicere impendentes, in gubernanda re publicamoderantem cursum atque in sua potestate retinentem, magni cuiusdam civis et divinipaene est viri.

to recognize them is the part of the wise man, and to foresee them when they threaten,holding a course and keeping it under his control while he steers the res publica, is thepart of a great citizen and an almost divine man. (Rep. 1.45).

Hence it cannot be an accident that Cicero uses this exact formula topraise Caesar’s wisdom as ‘almost divine’ in the very first line of thePro Marcello, when he claims that ‘such great humanity, such unusualand unheard of clemency, such incredible and almost divine wisdomin one who holds the greatest power over all things, I am scarcelyable to pass over in silence’ (tantam enim mansuetudinem, tam inusitataminauditamque clementiam, tantum in summa potestate rerum omniummodum, tam denique incredibilem sapientiam ac paene divinam, tacituspraeterire nullo modo possum; Marcell. 1).

That Cicero opens the speech with a conceited reference to hisreturn to politics has long been noticed.47 In the same way, he endsthe oration with a focus on himself: ‘There is no need for everyone to

45 As has recently been argued by J. G. F. Powell (n. 24).46 Generally, Caesar’s clementia has been singled out as the virtue that Cicero praises in the Pro

Marcello, but this focus switches in the second half of the oration. On the importance of sapientia,see Rochlitz (n. 15) and von Albrecht (n. 3) 172–3.

47 Commenting on this opening sentence, Gotoff (n. 2), 12, remarks: ‘Gentle Caesar or hisdivine clementia might have comprised the first theme, or the noble and valued Marcellus andhis imminent return to Rome. Instead Cicero explores the effect of the occasion on himself andclaims that Caesar’s decision creates a critical moment in his own career and in the life of theRepublic.’


stand up and speak, but they all at least want a speech from me’ (sedquia non est omnibus stantibus necesse dicere, a me certe dici volunt;Marcell. 33–4). As I hope to have shown, however, Cicero’s self-presentation is a matter of concern throughout the speech, even thoughhe is less explicit in revealing his personality. Rather, I have suggested,Cicero expends much time and effort to create a persona that appearsto be aware and cautious of the dangers that threaten the res publica, yetwho trusts in Caesar’s ability to meet the challenge; that is, to display anethos possessed of enough experience, reliability, and authority to advisethe dictator while simultaneously retaining the stance of an indepen-dent spokesman. Thus he lets the authorial persona of the De republicaserve as the proof of Ciceronian ‘sincerity’ in the Pro Marcello, with theresult that the advice offered in each work derives from the same ideo-logical principles. If we were to strip the advice of the Pro Marcello downto its barest outlines, the argument, after having established that there isno assassination attempt against Caesar, would run something like this:

Unlike the life of man, the republican constitution is immortal and, while it is regret-table that its survival depends on one man, that is not uncommon in times of crises.And so it falls on you, Caesar, to repair the damage of war. Morality is integral tothe survival of the Republic and so you must re-establish the law courts, curb licen-tiousness, increase the legitimate birth rate and see to it that legislation repairs allthat has gone wrong in society. You alone can restore the res publica, and so do notwish for death, for the constitution has not yet been restored. And, besides, this isthe only way to achieve the everlasting glory you desire: the just reward of your divinavirtus.

In short, read from this perspective, the argument of the Pro Marcelloechoes the central tenets of Cicero’s treatise De republica.

None of this should be taken to suggest that Cicero is sincere, or thathe viewed Caesar as the kind of enlightened statesman he had rec-ommended as his ideal in the De republica. But it does, I think, explainhow he could appear to be sincere, and how he could exhort Caesar torestore the res publica in words that the dictator would understand to betruly Ciceronian. And thus, to return to the dilemma cited by theGronovian scholiast, it was by these means that the Pro Marcello –

with its appeal to the best man to preserve the best constitution –

enabled Cicero to make his reconciliation by speaking in a way thatsuited both the times and Caesar.

Taking this argument further, we must remember that there is, ofcourse, a darker message to the De republica than my summary has so


far suggested, for the survival or destruction of the res publica dependson its leaders (Rep. 5.1–2), and the tyrant who threatens the eternity ofthe state must be deposed (Rep. 1.65). This task, too, falls upon thewise statesman. Lucius Brutus had set the example during the tyrannyof Tarquinius Superbus (Rep. 2.46), and P. Scipio Nasica had followedhis lead in freeing Rome of Tiberius Gracchus (Rep. 6.12 OCT= 6.8 Z).Commenting on the introductory dialogue of the somnium Scipionis,Macrobius even tells us that ‘Laelius complained that no statues ofNasica had been erected in public to commemorate his assassinationof the tyrant’ (Laelius quereretur, nullas Nasicae statuas in public in interfectityranni remunerationem locates; Macr. In Somn. 1.4.2–3), and that it wasthis remark that prompted Scipio’s response that ‘there are longer-lasting and fresher rewards, which he had seen with his own eyes, pre-served for good statesmen’ (illa esse stabiliora et viridiora praemiorum gen-era, quae ipse vidisset in caelo, bonis rerum publicarum servata rectoribus;ibid.). This point should not be passed over without comment, for, ifthe echoes of the De republica were indeed as explicit to Cicero’s con-temporary audience as I have suggested, then its forceful caveat – thattyrants will be assassinated – would not have been lost on Caesar.

KATHRYN [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

An Ethos of Sincerity: Echoes of Cicero's De Re Publica in the Pro Marcello

Documents

Transcript of An Ethos of Sincerity: Echoes of Cicero's De Re Publica in the Pro Marcello