Cicero's First Speeches

8/14/2019 Cicero's First Speeches

1/17

Cicero's First Speeches: A Rhetorical Analysis

Friedrich Solmsen

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69. (1938), pp.542-556.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association is currently published by The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSun Dec 9 11:57:25 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Rhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R


2/17

542 Friedrich Solmsen [I938

XXX.-Cicero s Fi rs t Sp ee ch es A R het or ica l Analy sisFRIEDRICH SOLMSEN

OLIVET COLLEGE. MICH.

I t would certainly be rash to assume that a Ciceronianoration if properly analyzed must resolve itself into a mosaicof rhetorical points and precepts faithfully observed by theorator. Much rather may it be said that the main object ofa rhetorical analysis should be to reveal the extent to whichCicero follows the theory as well as the extent to which he goesbeyond it . I t would again be a mistake to think that whereverwe do not find a technical precept covering Cicero's procedurehe must be drawing on the resources of his own ingeniumalone. For, besides the Greek technical tradition, Cicero isalso indebted to the native tradition of Roman oratory whichalready before his time had attained a high standard.' I t ishardly necessary to remind the reader of the deep admirationfor Crassus and Antony expressed in works like the De Oratoreand the Brutus or to refer him to Cicero's own description ofthe early stages of his career as given in the latter work. Thejustification of inquiring into Cicero's debt to previous Romanorators will hardly be disputed. How much then, we mayask, did he owe to these Roman precursors and how much toGreek theory? T o this question a careful analysis of the ProSexto Roscio Amerino the first great speech of Cicero, mayprovide an answer.

Fortunately the De Inventione published probably in orabout 86 (that is five years before he defended Sextus Roscius),enables us to form a notion of the type of rkxvq and technicalprecepts with which Cicero was familiar. In all probabilityCicero knew more rhetorical precepts than he embodied in


3/17

Vol. lxix] Cicero s First Speecheshis knowledge of rhetorical theory in the years between 86 and81. Considerations like these should indeed make us cautiousin using the material available in the De Inventione, but I donot think t hat they will really affect the main results of ourinvestigation. For the rest, as inventio covers only a part ofthe rhetorical system, our investigation must of necessity con-fine itself to th at very part which i t includes.

T o begin with, the disposition of the oration conforms toGreek theory. Every respectable oration must have a proem,a narration (giving the facts of the case), an argumentation(which is called conjirmatio in the De Inventione), and an epi-logue. In the De Inventione we find two more partes recom-mended; of these the reprehensio seems to have no bearingon our purposes, whereas the partitio may deserve our atten-tion. This part finds its place after the narration and in away constitutes a transition from the narration to the argu-mentation: having set forth the relevant facts in the narrationyou may as well pause for a moment, look round and pointout to your audience what you regard as the question a t issueon which you are going to concentrate in your arg~menta t ion .~In our speech Cicero states not so much the points which heis going to prove as the factors which damage his client (tressunt res quae obstent hoc tempore Sex. Roscio etc., 35).We may, then, with some right call the part to which 35belongs the partitio-in fact I do not know any better termfor it-and may extend it from 29 to 35 or 36. T o be sure,it is not a very orthodox partitio, and it would, for instance,be difficult to find in the De Inventione a precept covering theoutbursts of 29-32 or 33/34. Evidently Cicero felt that hisnarration had gone a long way towards stirring up those emo-tions which it was his intention to arouse and that it was aswell, after finishing the narration, to make sure that the indig-


4/17

544 Friedrich Solmsen [I938nation was kept alive and if possible increased. We shall haveto come back to this point.

As regards the proem and epilogue, there is unquestionablya great deal to be found in both that will call to mind thetraditional rhetorical precepts recorded as a matter of coursealso in the De Inventione. I t need hardly be mentioned thatCicero is anxious in the proem (1-13) to secure the attentionof his audience by pointing out the importance and peculiarnature of the case, to stir up odium against the adversaries,to avoid every appearance of arrogance, to introduce his clientin the way most likely to arouse the jury s pity.5 Similarlyin the epilogue (143-154) he aims a t moving the iudices topity for Sextus Roscius and indignation at the adversaries~ c h e m e . ~All these tactics are as I have said obvious and inperfect agreement with the rhetorical system. Yet more im-portant than the fact that Cicero does all these things is theway in which he does them, and as soon as we give our atten-tion to the manner in which he conforms to the technicalprecepts we get outside the system and are free to infer thathe himself is no longer guided by it . For the system confineditself to an enumeration of the subjects and devices which mayeffectively be used for miseratio, indignatio, and the like, andincluded no suggestion for their arrangement and order. Nordid it provide for those contrasts, amplifications, climaxeswhich are typical features of Cicero s proems and epilogue^ ^Moreover, Cicero s trump card (especially in the epilogue) isthe full exploitation of the emotional side of those subjectswhich in their contrast to one another and with their politicalimplications have been the dominating motif of the whole

Cf. for the proem, De I nu . 1.20-26; see esp . 22f.6 Cf. for the epilogue, De I nu . 1.98-109. In particular the first, fourth, and

seventh locus of the i n d i g n a l i o and t he first and sixteenth of the miserat io(100. 102, 106, 109) appear to be applicable.


5/17

5 5ol. Ixix] Cicero's First Speecheso r a t i ~ n . ~Yet the De Inventione pays no attention to the co-ordinating and the attuning to one another of effects producedin different parts of an oration, still less to the at tuning to oneanother of emotions aroused in different sections of a speech.

Let us also note th at the narration 14-28), as far as we canjudge, comes up to the standard requirements of clarity, plausi-bility, and, perhaps, also of b r e ~ i t y . ~ include the last quali tybecause I think that Cicero would maintain that he had men-tioned nothing that was irrelevant to the issue.

Most interesting from the technical point of view is theargumentation (confirmatio), the fourth part of our oration.For this the rhetorical schools provided an extremely elaboratesystem of proofs and arguments. The theory as set forth inthe De Inventione reflects the influence of Aristotle and Her-magoras. In particular, the lat ter's very involved and subtletheory of ~ r eis(constitutiones) forms, however modified, thebasis of both books. Cicero's Pro Sexto Roscio comes underthe head of the constitutio coniecturalis, which in plain Englishmeans that Cicero denies the fact and seeks to prove that hisclient did not commit the crime of which he is accused (nonfecit a s distinct from iure fecit, etc.).1 Considering, however,that Cicero after clearing Sextus proceeds (in 83) to prove tha tthe real culprits were the two elder Roscii we may a s well saythat Cicero proves (a) a non fecit and (b) a fecerunt. Bothargumentations come under the head of the constitutio con-iecturalis for which the De fnventione provides a wealth ofarguments. Thus we need not wonder if his arguments inthis part correspond to precepts laid down in that work. Wefind him discussing the motives or alleged motives of the crime,the character, mode of life, occupation of his client as well as

See below p. 549.9 Cf. De Znu 1.28 30. See, however, Tac. Dia l 2 2 abo ut th e young Cicero

as longus in narrationibus


6/17

Friedrich Solmsenof the two T. Roscii, the place, the circumstances, the atmos-phere of the time (tempus), the question who derived a benefitfrom it (cui bono?), the problem whether Sextus or rather theelder Roscii had an opportunity for committing the crime, thesuspicious events that followed its perpetration. For all thesepoints we find a theoretical basis in the De Inventione.12 Aftercomparing Cicero s argumentation in this speech with that inothers where he also strives to prove his client not guilty ofa charge of murder, I am inclined to agree with Preiswerk I 3that Cicero proceeds along the same lines everywhere: he be-gins with the factors ante scelus, examining mainly the motiveswhich may account for the crime, then proceeds to discuss thecircumstances (locus, tempus, facultas) under which the crimewas committed, and finally examines what happened after the~celus . ~This scheme is not directly suggested in the De In-ventione, but it could easily grow out of the suggestions madethere. The Rhetorica ad IIerennium (2.8) appears to comeeven nearer. Nevertheless, i t may with equal right be main-tained that the scheme is an obvious one th at originated in thesituation and would suggest itself to any patronus. If this iscorrect all that Cicero derived from Greek theory would besome inspiration as to how to proceed under each of theseheads.

In 77-79 and 119-121 Cicero dwells on the fact that theadversaries have refused to surrender for torture the slaveswhom they had taken over along with the rest of Sextusproperty. This refusal, he points ou t, besides being unfair to

12 C o m p a r e i n p a rt ic u la r 40 , 52 , 84f ( m o t i v e s ) w i t h D e I nn . 2 . 1 7 f ; 3 9 , 4 9 , 7 4 f,8 6 f , 8 8 , l O l f ( c h a ra c t er e tc . ) w i t h 1 .34-36, 2 .29 -32 , 35 -37, 45 ; 92 , 94 ( p l ac e ) w i t h1.38f. 2 .4 0; 73 -76 , 79 ( c ir c u m s ta n c e s ) w i t h 1 . 41 ; 8 0 . 9 3 ( t i m e ) w i t h 1 . 3 8. 2 . 4 0 ;84f , 99 , 108 ( c u i b o n o? ) w i t h 2 . 1 8 , 2 0 ; 9 2 - 94 ( o p p o r t u n i t y ) w i t h 1 . 4 1 , 2 . 2 4 ; 9 6 f ,105, 109-118 (p o s t s ce lu s) w i t h 1 . 3 7 , 2 . 4 3 . C f . P r o M i l o n e 3 2 ( m o t i v e s , c u ibonop) , 3 6 (char acter and consuetudo) , 3 8 ( o p p o r t u n i t y ) ,5 3 ( l o c u s ) , 5 5 ( c i r c u m -s t a n c e s ) , 6 1 (p o s t s ce lu s ) . S ee a l so n o t e 14. O n P r o C ae l. 53f w i t h C ic er o s n o t


7/17

5 7ol. lxix] Cicero's First S eechesSextus, suggests that they had a bad conscience. The DeInventione does no more than touch on the subject of puaes-tiones, testimonia, etc.,l%ut teachers of rhetoric had ever sincethe fifth or fourth century taught their pupils how to use fortheir best advantage anything that was in the least suspiciousin the adversary's conduct in these matters (uterque . . .torquere ad suae causae commodum debebit,16De Inv. 2.46).

A subject closely connected with that just mentioned andof equally old standing in the system is the 'commonplace'(locus communis). Teachers of rhetoric advised their studentsto use 'commonplaces' in order to heighten the importance ofthe topics with which they had or chose to deal. I t happensthat the Greek system which Cicero reproduces in the DeInventione instances the punishment of parricide as a suitablesubject for ampli,ficatio through commonplaces.17 Cicero, tobe sure, seeks to clear his client of the charge of parricide, buthe would certainly have considered himself a poor orator if hehad not found a way of adorning his oration with some com-monplaces on the extreme harshness of the punishment pro-vided for this crime (66-68, 69-7 2). These commonplacesgave him a unique chance to display his talent for amplifica-tion, his stylistic power and, last but not least, his 'philosophy.'We know that Cicero later, when his taste had matured, feltrather uncomfortable about the excessive display of rhetoricaltechnique in this part of his youthful oration.18 We may note

6 De Inu. 2.46f. Cf. for Cicero's treatment of testes e.g. Pro Cluent . 176.Pro C ae l . 19-22, 63, 66. See on the subject E. Linke in Commentationes Fleck-eisenianae (Leipzig, Teubner , 1890 . 197.

6 See on the beginnings of thi s practice, Friedrich Solmsen, Antiphonstudien(Berlin, Weidmann. 1931 .

De Inn. 2.48. See also 2.49, 51. Compare also as agreeing in th e structureof the argument Pro Sexto Roscio 79 with De Inu. 1.45.

l See Orator 107. I see no reason why Cicero should have taken his 'com-monplaces' from rhetorum nescio cuius libellus, as Preiswerk suggests op . c i t.


8/17


9/17

549ol. lxix] Cicero s First SpeechesRoscii, characterizing them as the real culprits; and in 124 helaunches his invective against Chrysogonus. The second ofthese sections may be said to form what is technically calledan ~ v T L K ~ T ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ounter-accusation designed to fix theguilt on a different person. But the motives of audacia andpotentia have no basis in rhetorical theory; nor have the attackon Chrysogonus or the references to the political backgroundof the law suit.

In discussing proem and epilogue (p. 544), I have alluded tocertain subjects to which Cicero again and again draws theattention of his audience and which may indeed be describedas the thread running through the oration from the beginningto the end. The two subjects stand in sharp contrast to eachother. Th e one is the greed, corruption, and unscrupulouswickedness of Sextus adversaries; the other is Sextus ownmodest and honest life, old-fashioned, but in keeping with thebest Roman traditions. Even in the proem Cicero informshis audience of the character and motives not so much of theaccuser as of those who use him as a tool, and shows his indig-nation a t the fact tha t they misuse law courts and legalprocedure for the promotion of their own selfish and criminalendsz1 In the narration, Cicero finds an opportunity. to de-scribe their conduct prior t o their accusation, and shows howtheir present course of action has grown ou t of their previouspolicy, being designed to remove the last obstacle to it.22 Thusfar nothing has been said in praise of Sextus Roscius mores,though he has been described as an innocent victim of a wickedscheme. The partitio underlines this fact. The first oppor-tunity for emphasizing Sextus admirable qualities arises inthe confirmatio, where it was appropriate to say somethingabout his mores, since these if anything would furnish a clueto the motives of his alleged parricide. The accuser had ac-


10/17

(see 42, 46). But this is all t o the good, declares Cicero, espe-cially if a man is so admirably fitted for farming as was SextusRoscius (44, 47, 49), and he forthwith launches into a glorifi-cation of the vita rustica as a breeding ground for the nationalRoman virtues (50f). He has an occasion for coming back tothis subject, later, where the fact (emphasized with a differentintention by the accuser) that Sextus hardly ever went toRome furnishes him with an alibi.23 Thus, gradually, the con-trast emerges between the unscrupulous sicarii for whom theelimination of Sextus is only the last item in the scheme inwhich the murder of his father was the first, and, on the otherhand, the innocent, unsophisticated victim who in a time ofgeneral moral degeneration clings to the occupations and vir-tues characteristic of Rome s better times. The second sectionof the confirmatio aims as we know a t destroying the creditand gratia of the two elder Roscii. Naturally, Cicero wouldnot let slip any opportunity of adding characteristic trai ts tothe picture of them that he had drawn before. I t was inkeeping with the ~ x v to use the mores as evidence for thecrime (the fecit), to examine the actions post scelus of the manunder suspicion, but it was not suggested in the system thatthe items under these heads should be used for a passionateindictment of the adversary as a violator of the sacred ties offides, amicitia, and the like. Not before so much incriminatingmaterial against Sextus adversaries had been put before thejury could Cicero dare to come forward with his life-size pic-ture of the gangleader, Chrysogonus. I t is this very contrast-which, as we have seen, has gradually emerged and to whichevery successive section of the oration has added new fea-tures-that provides the Leitmotif for the terrific crescendo ofthe epilogue where Cicero fans the indignation of the audienceto a white heat. In particular, the exposure of Chrysogonus


11/17

Vol. lxix] Cicero's First Speeches 1of their authority and to restore the law courts to their formerposition and dignity.24

T o characterize Cicero's procedure, we may borrow his ownphrase: impellit iudices quocumque causa po~tulat.~ e havesatisfied ourselves that a certain amount of technical knowl-edge has or a t least may have gone to the making of thisoration. But what lifts the oration far above the technicallevel is Cicero's shrewd calculation of the judges' emotionalreactions and the construction of the whole work on the basisof this calculation. Cicero had realized that the descriptionof the elder Roscii's policy would have more force after every-body had been convinced that the man against whom thispolicy was directed was a paragon of the old Roman virtues;that by characterizing these Roscii as enemies of human soci-ety he could prepare the ground for his att ack on Chrysogonus;th at Chrysogonus in turn had to be utterly discredited beforehe could tell the jury that to frustrate Chrysogonus' designswas no act of opposition to Sulla. T o realize how much thewhole oration would have lost in power and effectiveness weneed only for a moment imagine Cicero attacking these sub-jects in the inverse order.

In other words, the technical items have been made sub-servient to the orator's art of swaying the feelings of hisaudience. Xot only is there nothing in the De Inocntione thatwould suggest such a course, but it is altogether unlikely thatHellenistic rhetoricians would have advocated it . The avail-able evidence of Hellenistic systems rather leads us to assumethat they confined their precepts for the arousing of emotionsto proem and epilogue.26 On the other hand, there is evidencethat the Roman orators who preceded Cicero were alreadymasters in the a r t of controlling and directing the emotions oftheir audience. Antony in particular appears to have excelled


12/17

Friedrich Solmsenin it, and the analysis of his famous speech P r o C Norbanowhich we read in the De Oratore (2.197-201, 202f) is inspiredby Cicero s admiration for the superlative skill which Antonythere evidenced. For, Antony contrived to establish himselfin control of the jury s feelings, and succeeded in winning theirsympathy for a man whom they had detested when he roseto speak, and he inspired them against the man to whom theyhad been friendly. I t appears from tha t analysis th at everypart of Antony s speech had a definite function and contrib-uted in a definite way to the final and complete triumph; alsothat the parts were adjusted to one another in their subjectmatter as well as in their emotional coloring; and that through-out the oration Antony s tactics were determined by that sameshrewd calculation of the audience s reactions t hat has struckus as characteristic of Cicero s procedure. I need not quotemore than one or two sentences: Tum omnem orationemtraduxi et converti (Antony is speaking) in increpandam Cae-pionis fugam, in deplorandum interitum exercitus. Sic eteorum dolorem qui lugebant suos oratione refricabam et ani-mos equitum Romanorum apud quos tum iudices causa ageba-tu r ad Q. Caepionis odium renovabam. Quod ubi sensime in possessionem iudicii ac defensionis meae constitisse quodet populi benevolentiam mihi conciliaram et iudicumanimos totos vel calamitate civitatis vel luctu ac desideriopropinquorum vel odio proprio in Caepionem ad causam nos-tram converteram tum admiscere genus illud alterum

lenitatis et mansuetudinis coepi etc. De Orat . 2.199).There may have been moments in most of Cicero s speeches(at least in those which he actually delivered) in which hesensit se in possessionem iudicii ac defensionis suae constitisse.In the Pro Sexto Roscio he may have felt so either in 82 aftercompleting the actual defense, or in 7 after describing howT. Roscius Capito deceived and betrayed his fellows in the


13/17

55ol. lxix] Cicero s First Speecheshad evidently by that time already grasped the secret ofAntony s (and, as we may confidently add , other Roman ora-tors ) a r t , and was following in their tradition. The analysisof the oratio pro Norbano which he wrote 5 years later may beread as a tribute of gratitude. Having every merit of a con-genial approach, it constitutes a model also for any modernatt em pt a t analyzing Cicero s own great emotional orations.In fact, it comes to our aid a t precisely the point where theDe Inventione ceases to be useful.

By studying the precepts and rules embodied in the DeInventione (or in any other Hellenistic ~ k x v qof the type) anorator might learn how to prove a point but not how to turna i ud ic ium into an i n ~ e n d i u r n . ~ Whatever there is of plan,purpose, unity in Cicero s Pr o S exto Roscio can never be under-stood on the basis of the scholastic distinctions and the cas-uistry of Hellenistic systems of rhetoric but only on the basisof the Roman tradition of political oratory.

The relation between arguments and emotions, the rationaland the irrational element, is not exactly the same in the otherorations belonging to the same period of Cicero s activity.The Pro Quinctio does not show Cicero s + v x a y w y i a as trium-phant and as fully developed as the Pro Sexto Roscio, thoughthe emphasis which he lays again and again on Naevius veryungenerous conduct towards Quinctius 8 aims of course a testranging the jury from the adversary. In other orations thedesire to prove the point a t issue overshadows everything else.In the Pro Caecina Cicero makes ample use of the technicaldevices for the interpretation of a law, the repudiation of itsliteral and mechanical application, the reconstruction of thelawgiver s original intention. Yet here too earlier Roman

z See for this phrase De Orat. 2.202. Cf. for Antony also B r u t . 139, 144.For Crassus achievements in t buxaywyia see De Orat. 2.188. 222-226, B r u t . 197.


14/17

554 Friedrich Solmsen [I9 8orators, in particular Crassus, had shown the way.29 In theoratio pro Cluentio Cluentius mother is the bdte noire againstwhom Cicero hurls his thunderbolts at the beginning and theend; 3 yet the long middle part of the speech in which Ciceroendeavors to whitewash his client is on the whole less emo-tional. The further we read in the Pro Fonteio the moreclearly we realize that Cicero considers the hatred and fear ofthe Gauls which he expects to arouse in the jury as his strong-est card, and is determined to use it as effectively as possible.

We have already several times referred to the political back-ground of the oratio pro Sex to Ros cio and to analyze it withouttaking this background into account would indeed be hope-less. I t is hard to imagine that anyone could have defendedSextus Roscius without mentioning the political factors whichwere in play; but it may be doubted whether every patronuswould have emphasized the political issue as frankly andstrongly as Cicero does. The invective against Chrysogonusforms as we know the third part of the conjirmatio and it iseasy to realize that this is the best place where Cicero couldpu t i t . On the one hand, because the epilogue followed imme-diately, Cicero could make i t a point to keep alive the emotionsstirred up by that invective and to exploit them again andagain while the speech draws to its end. On the other hand,he would have ample opportunity in the preceding sections tocreate a suitable atmosphere for the political phase of hisoration. This was no easy task, as the jury would naturallybe very reluctant to listen with sympathy or approval to any-thing that looked like an attack on the man and the party inpower. When, however, Cicero had exposed the machinationbehind the accusation of Sextus Roscius and shown how shame-

z Cf. for Crassus ora tio pro M . C u r i o fragm. 29-32, Malcovati (see note 27).See also Pro Caec. 67-69. Cf on the causa Cur iana and Cicero s oration P r o


15/17

ol. lxix] Cicero s First Speecheslessly the adversaries had violated the laws of decent behavior,he could feel that the jury would no longer misunderstand thepolitical points he was going to make. He could at thatjuncture expect to convince them that the acquittal of SextusRoscius would not be an act of opposition to the cause ofSulla and the nobility, but only a blow a t those men who bytheir character and conduct were apt to discredit that other-wise excellent ~ a u s a . ~ ~et if he gauged his chance correctlyhe did so through his own ingenuity and again by the samepower of calculation that had guided Antony, for instance, indefending Norbanus before an unsympathetic or even directlyhostile I t seems useless to speculate whether any otherHellenistic T X V ~ may have offered more help in this matterthan the De Inventione. Technical precepts are necessarily~a86Xou,not ~ a 6 ~arrov;hus none could possibly fit the peculiarsituation that faced Cicero in the causa Rosciana. Moreover,it would be utterly inconsistent with the type of Hellenisticsystems and with their characteristic tendency to teach moreand more about less and less, that they should have appre-ciated the political situation as a factor of primary importanceaffecting the structure and configuration of a whole oration.

In the De Oratore Cicero treats the technical tradition as amatter of secondary importance to the Roman orator: thereis no harm in being acquainted with its precepts, but they willnever make a great orator. They certainly do not arouseCicero s enthusiasm to the same degree as his recollections ofCrassus, Antony, and their pupils, friends, and contemporaries,whose achievements he records with the greatest admiration.He advises the orator to rely on his ingenium, his culture, hisknowledge of Greek philosophy. I have written this analysis

3 See 135-142, especially 137. 139, 142.a Cf. De O r a t 2.197f, 202. T. Petersson, Cicero Biography (Berkeley,

University of California Press. 1920). refers to Antony's oratio fwo C. Norbano


16/17

556 Friedrich Solmsen I1938of the Pr o Sexto Roscio Am eri no in the conviction that Cicero sfirst great oration gives us some clues for the understandingof his attitude in the D e Oratore I am aware that I have notshown what philosophy meant to the orator Cicero, bu t feelthat he would maintain that he had brought a good deal ofphilosophy into his loci comm unes and t ha t he drew on i t alsoin his fivxaywria I have also failed to account for the pref-erence which in the De Oratore he shows for the Aristotelian(and Isocratean) system; but i t would not in an y case be wiseto at tack that problem before we have satisfied ourselves thathe goes beyond the Hellenistic r i x v ~ The presumption isthat it was his own realization of the inadequacy and thelimitations of the Hellenistic theory which led him back tothe classics. I have suggested elsewhere that Aristotle sapproach to the emotional factor in rhetoric has much morein common with Cicero s practice (and, we may add, with thatof Antony and other Roman orators) than Hellenistic theories;and am confident that a similar affinity between Aristotle stheory and Cicero s practice may be observed in other fieldsand phases of the rhetorical system.

See the paper cited in note 26 esp 4001


17/17

You have printed the following article:

Cicero's First Speeches: A Rhetorical Analysis

Friedrich Solmsen

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69. (1938), pp.542-556.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

26 Aristotle and Cicero on the Orator's Playing upon the Feelings

Friedrich Solmsen

Classical Philology, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Oct., 1938), pp. 390-404.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193810%2933%3A4%3C390%3AAACOTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

NOTE:The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193810%2933%3A4%3C390%3AAACOTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193810%2933%3A4%3C390%3AAACOTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281938%2969%3C542%3ACFSARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Cicero's First Speeches

Documents

Transcript of Cicero's First Speeches