“Do you not feel that your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which everyone here possesses of it?” (Cicero). Marcus Tullius Cicero was born on January 3, 106 BCE in modern-day Arpino, Lazio, Italy, where he served as Consul of the Roman Republic for a year in 63 BCE (Rawson, 303). While in office, Cicero was conspired against by Lucius Cataline in an attempt to kill a number of senators to overtake the Roman Republic in the Second Catilinarian Conspiracy (Clayton). Upon learning of Cataline’s intentions, Cicero gave an oration to the Senate in the Temple of Jupiter Stator against Cataline, to which he was surprisingly in attendance, in order to address him and his conspirators proclaiming his knowledge of their plans. Cicero was able to stop the conspiracy and avoid the Republic from falling into the hands of his opposition. Through the execution of five conspirators and the fleeing of Cataline, Cicero was able to put down the rebellion efficiently (Clayton). Cicero’s elaborate use of rhetorical questions, analogies, and mood precipitates an effective message that saves the course of the …show more content…
Roman Republic by stopping the conspiracy in its tracks. Cataline’s intentions stemmed from his repeated consulship loss to Cicero. He resorted to winning by illegal means, hence the planned conspiracy (Gruen, 20-4). An oration as such was necessary to be written because of the imminent danger Cataline posed. Not only was Cicero’s consulship at risk, but the entire Roman government was in danger of a violent cyclone of change. Cicero, on an immediate scale, was inclined to write this piece of rhetoric to halt any further proceedings of the conspiracy. He promptly begins by addressing Cataline directly with rhetorical questions to hint at what’s to come. Cicero then ceases beating around the bush and blatantly makes it known that not only he, but the entire senate floor is aware of Cataline’s conspiracy. “Shame on the age and on its principles! The senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! aye, he comes even into the senate. He takes a part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks,” (Cicero). This excerpt from The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina reveals the extent to which Cicero knows of Cataline’s actions and opens the doors for discussion of punishment. It is here that Cicero points out that the Senate is aware of the conspiracy by setting up a dark mood to suggest an imminent danger was upon the Republic and thus, to strike fear in the hearts of the conspirators. He also uses this rhetorical scare tactic to influence the senators to agree with him in punishing those involved. As aforementioned, Cicero put five conspirators to death and caused Cataline to flee. On the other hand, in an expanded outlook, Cicero took advantage of the opportunity to secure his position and favorability as consul, as well as to overall protect the state. Through a successful prevention of an otherwise national crisis, Cicero elevates the public perception of him, while maintaining his consulship, and proving to be quite the competent protector of his republic and Roman Senate values. Throughout the oration, Cicero’s tone is rather cold, accusatory, and aggressive. He maintains this style of diction to demean and frighten Cataline as he outlines his crimes and future punishments. He elegantly executes this manner of tone through the continuous use of rhetorical questions. Before or after Cicero outlines his point, he drives it to the hearts of the senators, but mainly Cataline, by asking rhetorical questions that Cataline would be unable to answer. Not only does the heavy emphasis on rhetorical questioning add a sense of incriminating proof, it worsens Cataline’s public image to the benefit of that of Cicero’s. “For if I order you to be put to death, the rest of the conspirators will still remain in the republic; if, as I have long been exhorting you, you depart, your companions, those worthless dregs of the republic, will be drawn off from the city, too. What is the matter, Catiline? Do you hesitate to do that when I order you which you were already doing of your own accord? The consul orders an enemy to depart from the city. Do you ask me, Are you to go into banishment? I do not order it; but, if you consult me, I advise it,” (Cicero). Cicero explains to Cataline and the senate that although it may be seen as morally unjust, if he had his way, Cataline would be executed for treason.
Once his plan was unveiled, Cataline took Cicero’s advice and fled Rome to avoid execution.
Cicero also makes excellent use of analogies, as he compares the circumstance of Cataline to that of others in his shoes, including, but not limited to, Caius Gracchus, Caius Servilius, Marcus Fulvius, and Lucius Saturninus. He does this in order to present similar cases of individuals who acted upon dissenting ideals towards the Republic and their punishments. One after the other, Cicero makes a point of naming dissenters who were executed for their unlawful actions. He then poses the question that asks if they died for their crimes, why shouldn’t
Cataline? “There was put to death, on some mere suspicion of disaffection, Caius Gracchus, a man whose family had borne the most unblemished reputation for many generations. There was slain Marcus Fulvius, a man of consular rank, and all his children. By a like decree of the senate the safety of the republic was entrusted to Caius Marius and Lucius Valerius, the consuls. Did not the vengeance of the republic, did not execution overtake Lucius Saturninus, a tribune of the people, and Caius Servilius, the pretor, without the delay of one single day? But we, for these twenty days, have been allowing the edge of the senate’s authority to grow blunt, as it were. For we are in possession of a similar decree of the senate, but we keep it locked up in its parchment—buried, I may say, in the sheath; and according to this decree you ought, O Catiline, to be put to death this instant. You live, —and you live, not to lay aside, but to persist in your audacity,” (Cicero). Employing all three rhetorical devices of analogy, rhetorical questioning, and mood to this excerpt from the oration, he effectively persuades the senators to abhor Cataline and punish him with execution. Although Cataline was never executed due to his escape, it is still valid to view Cicero’s attempts at convincing the Senate to punish him with death as effective, given the fact that an execution would have occurred if Cataline remained in Rome. In comparison to Cicero’s other orations, The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina, is fairly short. Ranging at around 3,400 words, this political oration remained concise and to-the-point. Cicero needed to grasp the attention of the Senate quickly and fuel a hateful passion against Cataline, something that couldn’t have been done by adding extra gibberish to take up time. In addition, Cicero knew he needed to act quickly, in order to stop the conspiracy from occurring in the first place. By condensing his oration to a simple, yet powerful speech, he both inspired the Senate and horrified the conspirators. In contrast to Cicero’s first-ever oration in 81 BCE, For Publius Quinctius, The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina, is significantly shorter and in opposition to an individual, instead of in support of an individual. Cicero seldom uses rhetorical questions in this oration, unlike the immense use of it in The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina. In For Publius Quinctius, Cicero helps to defend a Roman citizen by the name of Publius Quinctius in a family land dispute. The biggest difference that can be drawn from the two orations, is that of the style of rhetoric. In For Publius Quinctius, Cicero orated a lawful case, a stark difference to the position he holds in 63 BCE, as in The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina, Cicero is already consul, and now speaking out against an individual. While most orators and authors have a unique writing style, it may change over time, as is evident with Cicero’s work, depending on the context of the rhetoric. Throughout The First Oration Against Lucius Catalina, Cicero touches on a variety of different messages and rhetorical devices that are relayed to the Senate and Cataline. However, the essential message that Cicero was attempting to convey was that of protecting the Roman Republic. Above all, Cicero strived to maintain a secure homeland for all of Rome’s citizens, hence the need to extinguish any threats of imminent danger or, in this case, conspiracies against the government. In 63 BCE, an uprooted government led to an uprooted people. Cicero knew that action had to be taken against Cataline and the conspirators in order to keep Rome safe and uphold Roman values that safeguard the Republic’s future. Cicero’s message was conveyed effectively through the utilization of rhetorical questions, analogies, and mood in that the threat to the Roman Republic was eradicated and maintained peace in Rome for years to come.
In William Shakespeare's, Julius Caesar, rhetorical devices are used throughout Decius Brutus’s speech to Caesar to persuade him to attend the senate, and ultimately meet his demise. Decius Brutus uses repetition to directly play into Caesar’s ego and convince him to show at an event he was previously very unsure of. Decius first uses repetition to make Caesar feel as if he were an irreplaceable addition to the senate. He addresses Caesar as, “most mighty Caesar…” (2.2.74) multiple times throughout his oration. The repetition of “mighty” draws Caesar’s attention away from the fact that he really must not go to the senate and instead focuses on why he must. Caesar is known to be easily persuaded by the promise of attention or rewards. Decius
Caesar was known for being popular amongst the people. However, Cato viewed him with suspicion and viewed him as a threat to the Republic. For the next several years, Cato did everything in his power to block Caesar and deter his every ambition. For instance, when Caesar proposed another piece of legislation that would divide all of Campania. Of course, Cato had opposed this proposal.
Pro Caelio is a speech given by Roman politician and famed orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of his former student and now political rival Caelius. Caelius was charged with political violence in the form of the murder of Dio. Caelius’ defense was structured so that Caelius first spoke in his own defense, following him was Crassus, and finally Cicero. Cicero attempted in his defense to not just refute the accusations brought forward by the prosecutors. Instead, he first demonstrates that Caelius is an upstanding citizen and provides many examples to prove this. He further defends Caelius by swaying the jury in his favor through the employment of comedy. Vice versa he turns the jury against the prosecutors through slander (i.e. he constantly
against what Caesar is doing but the point of killing him is to end what he is doing not to
In this day and age, persuasion can be seen on almost any screen. The average American views thousands of advertisements every week. Most ads are simply pushed out of a person’s mind, but the successful advertisements are the ones that resonate with people. Some forms of ads are very annoying to those who put up with them constantly. Online pop-up ads, for example, are proven to do worse for products and business than no advertising at all! This is because this form of advertising does nothing to convince or persuade the person viewing the ad, and no effort is put into actually put into proving what it’s worth to make a point. Pop-ads make zero use of something known as “rhetorical devices”. In Julius Caesar, Brutus and Mark Antony both try to convey their point of view to a large audience of Roman citizens. One had a better speech than the other since he used “rhetorical devices” more effectively. Logos (logical; what makes sense), Ethos (ethics and morals; portraying similar beliefs and values), and Pathos (emotions; natural feelings that can be counterintuitive to logos) are the rhetorical devices that Aristotle
In 63 b.c., while Gnaeus Pompey was conquering and reorganizing the East, and Julius Caesar was ascending the cursus honourum, a discontented noble named Lucius Sergius Catalina, anglicized to Cataline, fomented a revolution against the Roman Republic and attempted to become supreme ruler. This attempted coup d’état against the Roman state was foiled by the senior consul, Marcus Tullius Cicero.
In the famed author William Shakespeare’s playwright Julius Caesar, we are introduced to an extraordinary plot of a powerful ruler, Julius Caesar, who gained power through astonishing victories and remarkable strategies but fell victim to betrayal. The betrayal that led to his demise was led by some of the very people that surrounded him the most, even some people that he considered as friends. The theme of betrayal and the notion of friendship and its validity are both topics that are worth examining but perhaps the most prevalent topic that drives this plot is the image of Caesar. Caesar ascended into power after a long period in Rome where the rise of tyranny had been fought systematically and physically. He had to not only be a powerful leader but also a wise politician when it came to his decisions. His image tarnishes more and more as his power increases and he too chases after it. He becomes so ambitious over power that he begins to feel immortal and free from danger. His conspirators do not just want him out of power for the simple sake of it but because some of them, either persuaded or not, earnestly believed that Julius Caesar’s death would save Rome not hurt it. What makes this playwright’s so extraordinary is not the dynamic drama alone, but also the depiction of Julius Caesar and how even in the monstrosity of his murder, his image was still arguable causing division amongst men. Although William Shakespeare has, for a very long time now, been known for his great writings it is clear that he himself depicted a ruler that would win favor in the eyes of the great Italian political philosopher and writer Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli but not the profound Italian writer Baldassare Castiglione. Both writers wrote ab...
– In defense of Marcus Caelius Rufus. Political Writings of Cicero. – (from the Course Packet)
Who was Julius Caesar? Julius Caesar accomplished many things in his day, which most would consider unbelievable. He has been considered a tyrant or dictator, and some believe he was one of the world’s greatest politician. In this paper we will compare the textbook and documentation that was written around 44 B.C.E the time of his death. The documents are considered to be “primary sources”, because of the timeframe in which they were written. To get a grasp on whom, Julius Caesar really was, we need to not only dive into the primary sources, but we need to view his accomplishments. By analyzing his accomplishments, textbook, and the primary sources we can better understand just how Julius Caesar was portrayed during his reign.
Julius Caesar was the dictator of Rome in his prime. Some say his journey to the top was paved in corruption, other claimed he was a man of the people. His enemies knew to fear him for his ruthlessness. His followers adored him because everything that he had succeeded in was done for them. Unfortunately, his betrayal transpired by his senators who felt he had grown too powerful and stabbed him to death. However, Julius Caesar’s connection to the political world, his innate ability as an army general, and his desire to advocate for the rights of his people made him a great leader.
In his play Julius Caesar, Shakespeare employs various rhetorical strategies such as direct address, repetition, and apostrophe in Antony’s eulogy to convince the crowd into believing that Caesar was a good ruler. His excellent use of rhetoric begins before he starts his speech through the establishment of familiarity. Before Antony begins his speech, he refers to the crowd as “friends, romans, [and] countrymen” to establish a personal connection, indicating the use of direct address (3.2.82). By referring to the crowd as “friends,” Antony removes any separation between him and the audience, establishing a close bond by choice. As it came first on his list, it emphasizes the importance of his friendship with the audience as friendship implies
Playwright, William Shakespeare, in the play Julius Caesar, utilizes many instances of rhetorical devices through the actions and speech of Caesar's right-hand man, Mark Antony. In the given excerpt, Antony demonstrates several of those rhetorical devices such as verbal irony, sarcasm, logos, ethos, and pathos which allows him to sway the plebeians. The central purpose of Mark Antony’s funeral speech is to persuade his audience into believing that Caesar had no ill intentions while manipulating the plebeians into starting a rebellion against their new enemies, Brutus and the conspirators.
The decision of a death sentence for Caesar was “more disagreeable to say, than to do.” The consuls and most of the senators fled Rome and left the authority of the city to the Caesar.
One of the first occasions presented was the plotting of Caesar’s assassination. Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius and the other conspirators all wanted to rid Rome of Caesar. However, not one of them could give the green light.” They needed one who held a high place in the hearts of the people, to support them and to justify their actions. They needed an “honorable” man. Without this man, the conspirators would not be called conspirators for they would not have had sufficient strength to see it through. In that, there would not have been a conspiracy. Marcus Brutus agreed to be their source of strength. This final decision to join Cassius and company marked the end of Julius Caesar.
...ntriver. And you know his means/If he improve them may well stretch so far/As to annoy us all…” (2.1.154-159). What is also evident here is Cassius’ fear of another power suppressing his, or that of his co-conspirators, which is another reason he probably wanted to include Cicero in their plans in the aforementioned lines.