Cicero

While the conclusion of the Pro Ligario and the imagery of Caesar as parens is often cited as a point of divergence from Cicero’s other forensic oratory (Drumann; Walser; McDermott; Lintott), I assert that Cicero, in fashioning his judge into a figure sympathetic to his cause, is following his customary forensic defense. Before the Caesariana, Cicero provided the iudex with an opportunity to prove that he was a bonus vir.

Cicero, in his defense of M. Fonteius, rests significant argumentative weight on the idea that Fonteius should be acquitted because men with military experience were in short supply. The speaker contends that although in the past the Republic had enjoyed an abundance of capable military leaders, in 70 BCE it was allegedly difficult to find such a man inside or outside of the Curia. Some scholars (e.g.

For those who perceive Cicero as vain and megalomaniacal, his letter to the historian Lucceius (Fam. 5.12), suggesting that Lucceius should write a history of Cicero’s consulship, is exhibit A. I argue that this letter was meant to be read as ironic, an erudite joke shared amongst friends, rather than as a serious demand. Cicero’s treatment of Lucceius as a reader and as an author in his own right is particularly rich in double meanings and potential ambiguity, which encourage Lucceius not to view the letter as a transgression of decorum.

The large corpus of Cicero’s letters is invaluable for the insight it offers into the volatile period of the Late Republic. Scholars have long recognized these letters’ prosopographical value and their potential to illuminate the political tensions of the period (e.g., Hall 2009) and to reveal Cicero’s genuine sentiments (e.g., Shackleton Bailey 1971; Wilkinson 1982) and his tangible and symbolic generosity as a patron (e.g., Déniaux 1993). Letters of recommendation represent a particularly interesting category in the corpus.