§§1–14. Exordium. Insinuatio §§1–5. Cicero Introduces Himself and Presents His Interpretation of the Political Circumstances of the Murder Trial
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
§§1–14. Exordium. Insinuatio §§1–5. Cicero introduces himself and presents his interpretation of the political circumstances of the murder trial. §§6–14. Cicero argues that the real issue is an attempt by Chrysogonus and others to retain possession of the dead man's property. If, he says, the jurors remove Roscius the defendant, there will be no one left to contest their seizure of this large estate. §1 Credo ego vos ... mirari Landgraf refers to Ernesti to cite a nearly exact parallel with the opening of Isocrates' Archidamus. For further discussion see Weische 1972: 21–23, who compares the syntactical similarities and Cicero's more complex structure to Isocrates'. Weische 1972: 21 n. 4 also adduces Demosthenes Phil. 1.1. There are a number of examples of credo ego (or scio ego) both before Cicero's time and after, especially in Plautus and Terence; Cicero uses neither phrase again in the orations. Landgraf notes that credo here means "I think/suppose", or "it is likely". The first-person pronoun is necessary to the juxtaposition of subjects; its position and repetition (ego potissimum) make explicit the beginning a nostra persona, an exordium necessitated by the nature of the case; cf. Quintilian's summary of methods of insinuatio (4.1.44). Cicero begins with himself as pleader. The opening sentence draws attention through sound effects as well, with repetition of S and R, and the triplet polysyndeton neque. quid sit quod This indirect question is introduced by mirari. "What is the reason why" as a direct question would be quid est quod, where est is emphatic. This clause in turn introduces its own indirect question ego potissimum surrexerim. The circumlocution for a simple statement or question, e.g., "my appearance surprises you", embraces both topics that Cicero will advance: the political ramifications which, he argues, may impede an impartial decision, and an apology for his own lack of distinction and experience. Later (§§59–60) he recreates the initial effect of his appearance on the prosecutor. summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi The defendant's patroni, whom Cicero describes as men of forensic experience (oratores) and political standing, either on their own account or because of their family relationships (nobilissimi). cum … sedeant The verb sedeo in this concessive clause is equivalent to "not speak"; although eminent men sit with the defendant as advocati to show their support, they will not take part in arguing the case. is qui … sim … comparandus Cicero's separation of the two parts of the passive periphrastic verb comparandus sim creates suspense: it is evident as soon as he says sim that the person referred to by is qui is the orator himself, and that bracketed between qui and sim are three nouns in the ablative case somehow relating to him, but the whole meaning will not be clear until he refers again to the seated advocati (cum his qui sedeant) and adds the participle comparandus. The subjunctive is due to the clause being an integral part of the clause ego potissimum surrexerim (A&G 593; also called subjunctive by attraction). aetate ... ingenio ... auctoritate Two of the ablatives of specification (A&G 418) – the respect in which Cicero cannot be compared to the seated advocati – demonstrate that he is not a person of standing (aetas: he was twenty-six years old; auctoritas: he had none to speak of, no public career, no noble ancestors); the third (ingenium) fulfills the demands of modesty. Each of these nouns is a syllable longer than the one preceding, and appear in that order to preserve this progression and to end with the most important word of the three, auctoritas. As Cicero continues the discussion of his suitability as a patronus, he concentrates upon his youth and obscurity, ignoring the question of ingenium until the end of his introduction of himself (§5). qui sedeant While the verb sedeant repeats the message that the usual patroni are silent, the subjunctive mood is not characteristic but part of virtual indirect discourse (A&G 593). Cicero continues to express what he says must be the thoughts of the jurors. Omnes hi etc. Cicero refers to the advocati, who will lend moral support, and even advice or assistance (cf. §149). Schol. Gronov. interprets his inclusion of the silent advocati as a bid to bolster his auctoritas. In other cases multiple advocates represented the defendant and divided the parts of the defense in accordance with their expertise and special talents. To speak of the others' good will is both usual and expected, although here the good will is linked with reluctance, perhaps cowardice (non audent). A disclaimer immediately follows: Cicero explains that the identity of the speaker becomes part of the meaning of his words (§2). One alternative to giving a political slant to the silence of great men is to state, or to allow it to be thought, that by not pleading the case these men are lacking in their duty to their cliens. Cicero chose not to do that. Cf. below officium sequuntur. Who these people are must be surmised from the names that he cites in §15; the only individual known to be in court with the defendant was one Messala (see note to §149). Another reason to assert that the noble supporters do not dare to defend the accused is to devalue their status as noble supporters; Cicero will argue that his client is weak, virtually without resources against the powerful person supporting the prosecution. adesse This verb is a technical term when used absolutely: to lend support to the case, by their physical presence. It may also take the dative of the person supported, as at Sen. 38 adsum amicis. Although Clark does not punctuate after adesse in this line, other editors insert a comma to indicate that the prepositional phrase in hac causa need not be construed with the infinitive. Cicero regularly employs adsum alone when he uses it in this sense; he sometimes adds a prepositional phrase to indicate the area of interest, e.g., in consilio, in iudicio, cum adversariis. iniuriam ... conflatam Cicero will explain that after Roscius maior was killed, the son was robbed of his inheritance because the father's name was entered upon the lists of the proscribed. The verb conflare means to create something out of something else, or out of whole cloth, occasionally in a literal and neutral way, but usually with a disapproving sense: to manufacture that which one ought not, to make something for a nefarious purpose. novo scelere This is the Latin equivalent of adding insult to injury; according to Cicero, those responsible for the father's death engineered an accusation of his murder against the son. The crime is new in the sense of newly invented, previously unheard of, as well as recent, the latest assault on the defendant. Landgraf observes that novus and inauditus frequently appear in company; he compares Phil. 11.29. oportere defendi, defendere ipsi non audent Juxtaposition of the passive and active infinitives of the same verb effectively contrasts their feeling that something ought to be done but that they themselves do not dare to do it. At §148 Cicero says again that the many men who ought to be Roscius' supporters do not dare to defend him; he adds there that some of them were not willing to be present in support. iniquitatem temporum As Cicero explains in §11, this case is the first regularly constituted murder trial since the beginning of civil strife in Rome; he does not reveal whether he means during Sulla's first consulship or to a time extending back to Marius' last consulship, and he may be deliberately vague. See note to §11 longo intervallo. ita fit ut adsint … taceant autem A substantive clause of result (in this sentence, ut governs both adsint and taceant) is the subject of fit (A&G 571). propterea quod ... idcirco quia Propterea and idcirco, redundant in English translation, signal the following causal clauses beginning with quod or quia (lit. "for this reason, because"). Also in §§3, 5, 65, 81, 111, 113, 116; idcirco quod in §§94, 112, <145> and idcirco ut in §§111, 137 (bis), 141, 153; ideo quod in §§36, 85; illa causa quod in §4 (cf. causa nulla cur in §146). Cicero, even in his later period, often repeats a construction at close intervals. See, for example, Laughton 1950, and, for the same phenomenon in Livy, Gries 1951. The indicative in the causal clauses claims credibility: he advances his own explanation for the others' behavior, he does not reproduce theirs. See §6 quoniam for a similar use of the indicative. §§2–5 In the space of twenty-two lines Cicero will use the verb dicere ten times, seven of them in the first nine lines; three are absolute (si qui ... dixisset; ut dicerent [§4]; possem dicere [§5]) in the sense of "plead the case". The intended cumulative effect of the unreal subjunctives referring to those who are not speaking, and the futures with their adverbs (libere dixero ... liberius dixero) and virtual future (possem dicere) referring to himself is to leave no doubt in the mind of those in attendance that speaking out is a risky endeavor. He achieves thereby no little self-advertisement, despite his denials. At the same time, he is already laying the foundation of his defense, which requires the jurors to accept his assertion of dangerous political undercurrents. §2 quid ergo Landgraf on §36 Quid igitur est discusses the difference between the phrases quid ergo/igitur? and quid ergo/igitur est?. Briefly, to ask quid ergo? points to a conclusion, whether or not correct, and is often followed, as here, by an elucidating question.