Cicero is a Smart Mouth- Brad B.

Brad Barna

Kuan Hwa

26, November 2016

Cicero is a Smart Mouth

In ode to Cicero and his genius, this paper will begin with a chreia to his style and method of creating his interrogation against Mark Antony. What brings a man to abhor another to an extent of fearlessness of insinuated death? What drives him to perform a forty two paragraph speech of endless jabs? How many ways can Cicero shame Mark Antony? These are all questions answered by the second part of his Speech Against Antony, where this essay will examine in detail the figures commonly employed to convey the overarching message, to the court, and to Antony himself in order to follow the conclusion of his demise. The speech is divided into five general sections (which we will be discussing the first two) where Cicero either finds a new way to extirpate Antony’s rationale towards war against the Republic or condemns him from his known allegiance to the tyrant Caesar, who was recently murdered (at the time of this speech).

Beginning with the first section (Paragraphs 1-12) Cicero opens up, with his speech geared towards the “conscript fathers” of the court were it is clear he will proceed to prosecute in a Judicial (he dwells mostly in past events of Antony’s decision making and life) manner the atrocious acts against the Republic committed by him in the likes of his previous prosecutions such as that of Catiline or Clodius. Though not clear from the beginning but following his particular manner, Cicero embodies in an extended metaphor to be not only the savior of the Republic but the Republic itself; we see this in the following phrase “TO what destiny of mine...that none for the last twenty years has been an enemy to the republic without at the same time declaring war against me”(1)? It becomes clear as the speech proceeds the role Cicero has undertaken to prove himself to be the persuading jurist he is.

In the following paragraph, he includes two hypotaxis to discuss the main objective following the central argument, which is to engage in a discussion of the friendship they once held. The first hypotaxis “I see nothing either in my life, or in my influence in the city, or in my exploits, or even in the moderate abilities with which I am endowed, which Antony can despise” (2), consisted of Antony’s inability to hate and yet it seems to be almost unworthy of his time, although Cicero does question if he so desires to be engaged in a word battle where he will be able to practice his ‘eloquence’ (a reference to his central theme in The Ideal Orator). He furiously responds about Antony that “He thought it impossible to prove to the satisfaction of those men who resembled himself, that he was an enemy to his country, if he was not also an enemy to me” (2). Here one becomes acquainted with how Cicero will mandate the style of his speech, and also the extension of the initial metaphor between the Republic and Cicero, bridging them closer together with every paragraph.

The third paragraph holds to be the very mindset of Cicero against Antony when it comes clear to plead him guilty of his crimes despite their previous friendship. Through the extended anaphora, in which the first three questions begin with “Was I not to plead against...” (3) creates a space where one situates Cicero as the rational man compared to the ‘insanity’ of Antony. Through the repetition of “freedman” at the end of the paragraph, called a conduplicatio, one can come to see the importance of Antony’s origin and how that will develop through the later sections of the speech.

The first glance at bitter taunting employed by Cicero is visible in the fourth paragraph when he employs a sly jab “you would more have consulted your own character and your reputation for chastity” (4). It is clear what he thinks of Antony, as his ironic statement is then lead with the questioning of the fifth paragraph where Cicero employs consonance with the words “assistance” twice and “instance” in the initial sentences to elaborate on the rhetorical questioning forthcoming. He interrogates on whether he should be grateful to Antony for not killing him in Brundusium, which parallels the continuation of this line of questioning in the twenty-third paragraph. He then continues with an auxesis in the same paragraph, mentioning “whom you yourself are in the habit of styling most illustrious men, would never have acquired such immortal glory” (5). This remark is not only ironic in the sense when speaking of Antony, it also amplifies the goal of the man himself into something one would originally desire to reach but with malicious intent becomes only ironically amplified to a desire of an evil entity. Cicero ends this paragraph with another conduplicatio, bringing attention to the word “kindness” and how this is to be correlated to Antony with a metaphor “however, grant that it was a kindness since no greater kindness could be received from a robber” (5). This association of a robber to Antony is developed throughout the speech.

In the sixth paragraph, he brings about the knowledge of some letters that Antony has provided as evidence against Cicero, but he quickly responds to this with sarcasmus by acknowledging that those letters never came from him. Cicero continues to ironically flatter him “O you eloquent man… Of hand writing you have a lucrative knowledge… for the letters are written by an amanuensis” (6) instigating that if by proof of handwriting he is to show the letters are of Cicero, he absolutely cannot only furthering the idea of Antony as ignorant. This paragraph’s end parallels with that of thirty five where he jabs a sarcastic insult at his education “I envy your teacher, who for all that payment which I shall mention presently, has taught you to know nothing” (6) while in the thirty fifth paragraph he writes “and two thousand [acres] to your master of oratory; what would you have done if he had been able to make you eloquent?” (35).

Returning to the first section’s theme on the broken bonds of friendship, Cicero articulates some of Antony’s loyalty by the “slaying” of his enemies in a conduplicatio in the first part of the paragraph, depicting a bond once felt from both, but soon broken as Cicero reiterates to never have told him to slay those enemies close to them in the courts, making it well known it was never advised by Cicero to inflict any harm among them. Remarking how he did not also advise for the “slaying” of Caesar, but he could not hold his “delight” from the sight of his absence. He continues his argument with a chiasmus “ for what was the reason for having new law to inquire into the conduct of the man who had slain him, when there was a form of inquiry already established by the laws? However, an inquiry was instituted.” (7) which fortifies the belief of Caesar breaking the law by becoming a tyrant there is a right to retaliate to the illegality at hand. With that being said, in the eighth paragraph, Cicero remarks of Caesar’s relationship to Pompey the Great and how in their friendship, did he only interject twice to advise Pompey (had he taken his advice, the actions following wouldn’t have happened).

Cicero continues the central argument of the fracturing friendship no longer of himself but that of Caesar and Pompey in the ninth paragraph with parallel polysyndetons in the beginning and end (9) which enumerate the reasons as to why Cicero had briefly advised Pompey against Caesar for the sake of the preservation of the Republic. As he starts the tenth paragraph he ends the former dialogue, “these are all old stories now” (10). He is now concerned with the new “charge” where Caesar “was slain by [his] contrivance” (10). He refutes this accusation with the notion of advice coming from all men of the republic, where he again dissociates with the Republic while also adopting its name, in short, not denying contribution to the conspiracy of the eradication of Julius Caesar in this chiasmus, “[Lucius Tillius Cimber (one of the assassins of Caesar)] a man whom I admired for having performed that action rather than ever expected that he would perform it; and I admired him on this account” (11) while still following the extended metaphor “do you think that those men were instigated by my authority rather than by their affection for the republic?” (11) in a negating sense which he will later evolve again into a positive correlation in the twelfth paragraph where he states when Marcus Brutus had killed Caesar he “called on Cicero by name, and congratulated him on liberty being recovered” (12). He clearly not only extends the metaphor but mistakes one term for the other, in a sense, almost becoming a Metonymy. He ends this section in the bottom of paragraph twelve with a clear remark which blurs the lines of his contribution to the slaying of Caesar “in truth, all good men, as far as it depended on them, bore a part in the slaying of Caesar… [but] everyone had the inclination” (12). This singles out Antony as other than good, which is developed throughout the speech. In this first section delving in personal relationships, one can see the emotions felt by Cicero against Antony, delivering a compelling speech with enough proof to exhibit his genuine distaste for his personal attacks. Cicero goes even further in the following section, where he discusses the youth of Antony in very crude nature.

The second section (13-15) begins with a close cross-examination of Antony’s misfortunes from his early age. In what is to be an extensive metaphor in the thirteenth paragraph, Cicero employes vestment as a way to describe the beginning and end of his adversity. The metaphor begins with Antony “still clad in the pretexta” (13) which was a tunic worn by the younger familiars in court, where he denotes his bankruptcy due to his gambling problem when he blamed it on his father (later on revealed in the text more thoroughly, specifically in the bottom of paragraph twenty nine).  Cicero then proceeds to dress him in a “manly gown, which [Antony] soon made a womanly one”, which led him to become a “public prostitute with a regular price for [his] wickedness”(13). All of this narrates his story of downfall and how he had to recuperate by whatever price. This metaphor, which becomes a simile continues through where “Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and as if he had bestowed a matron’s robe upon you settled you in a steady wedlock” which tells of his youth and how he escaped poverty and his ‘trade’ by the metaphorical cloak of his patron. All this exposes the reality of where Antony comes from and Cicero hopes what it will tell his audience of why he is to be shunned by his later choices. In an era where title and deeds along with words are imperative to one’s living, Antony is at a loss at an exposition of his tale. He proceeds to downgrade Antony even more by the telling of his incessant wickedness and how Curio’s father could no longer endure it with personification “that house could no longer endure your wickedness” (13).

But that wasn’t enough for Cicero, he made it clear that Antony’s wickedness was the driving force as to what prompted misery to the household of Curio. With accumulating gambling debt-again referenced in the fourteenth paragraph- Antony was down six million sesterces, and by the whim of Curio’s father, and Curio’s hyperbolized “burning love” where they able to pay up at the expense of their estate. This is telling of his destructive pattern of behavior repeated throughout the speech built on to dissuade any feel of compassion for him. Cicero then makes a reference to the “sword” and its symbolization as the power of the state (mentioned in Catiline) and how he would not be entrusting it to Antony any time soon which builds on another layer of why he does not like him. But he impedes himself to go further (in the fifteenth paragraph) about the myriad things he could mention about Antony’s “profligacy” and “debauchery” (which these two words in themselves are consonance).

Cicero impedes himself from “mentioning” more of his disdainful acts out of “honor” which is an aposiopesis or emotional abruption of the facts at hand in the fifteenth paragraph and last part of the second section. This evokes Cicero’s deep hatred of Antony in literally unspeakable ways (which he delves later on in detail throughout most of the speech). The second section envelopes an environment that follows the last three section, that of animosity towards a character in attempt to disapprove him through extensive detail as to his betrayal, his affinity to weakness and his bad life choices. All the while, Cicero is perhaps not directly, boosting his credibility as the “savior of the Republic” and a ‘champion’ of the people of Rome.

Throughout the course of these two sections one comes to understand that Cicero aims to blame Antony for causing the tyranny of Caesar, which ended in his death. Cicero then, claimed victory for the Republic, but retained the hatred for all that remained of Caesar and was to convict in the most verbally denigrating ways all those who once followed him. He was successful in driving him out of the Republic, where he spent the rest of his days in Alexandria, Egypt, were he once went “against the authority of the republic” (17) later on to be examined. The first two sections also delineate the evolution of what will be the extended metaphor of Cicero and the republic, first by direct association of what he holds dear, but later as being the republic itself, ending on paragraph forty two with vowing his life to protect the republic in youth then and in old age now before the “sword” of malicious men, referencing back to Catiline and Clodius, where he began.