1
Name
Professor
Writing 150
21 December 2016
Employing Invective: A Rhetorical Analysis of Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration, Section 17
In the time of a republic that functioned primarily by means of speeches full of rhetoric
and political invective, consul Marcus Tullius Cicero ruled the roost. Judging by his writing, it is
no wonder he is known even now as a great orator and rhetor. Although there is little and mostly
one-sided evidence that Lucius Sergius Catiline, a senator, plotted for power over Rome and the
Republic, if we are to take Cicero’s word for it, Catiline most certainly did. Cicero had two
purposes in the first of his four Catilinarian Orations, which he presented to the entire senate—
including Catiline. Because he suspected Catiline of plotting against himself as well as the
Republic, Cicero tried to prompt Catiline to leave of his own accord in the hope that he wouldn’t
need to deal with him directly. This was his chance to overcome the Senate’s prejudice against
him as a novus homo (Shapiro 141) as well as convince them to join him in thwarting Catiline,
and Cicero took that chance effectively.
Section 17 of Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration is full of beginnings. In it, Cicero
introduces the running simile of the republic as a parent, and he gives Catiline a little bit of
wiggle room for the first time, at least as far as reasons for leaving the country go. The section is
also full of rhetoric, unsurprisingly—in it, Cicero demonstrates his adeptness at using rhetoric,
and he puts that talent to use as he tries to get Catiline out of Rome. Through the use of rhetorical
devices such as careful word choice and placement, careful grammar usage, personification, and
2
an abundance of rhetorical questions, Cicero not only furthers his argument that Catiline ought to
be ousted from the city but also inadvertently reveals the insecurity of his current position.
Cicero uses rhetorical question after rhetorical question in his oration. It’s like a
trademark. He asks accusatory questions such as “Do you not consider that you should leave the
city?” and “Will you not respect [your country’s] authority, bow to her judgement, or fear her
power?” (Cicero 51). By asking so many questions, Cicero reveals that he is actually speaking to
two audiences at the same time. Cicero didn’t originally expect Catiline to show up and
participate in the senate on the day he gave his speech. He wasn’t counting on having to address
both his enemy and the people whom he needed to turn against that enemy, and yet that’s the
situation into which he was thrown. Cicero addresses both the senators as a whole and Catiline as
an individual simultaneously. Presumably, based on the section just preceding this one, no one
answers Cicero’s questions—Cicero mentions “gravissimo iudico taciturnitatis,” or “the hostile
verdict of [the senators’] silence” (Cicero 51). Even though Cicero may be addressing Catiline,
his purpose is not actually to speak only to Catiline as an individual; he could have done that
privately. Cicero directs his words at Catiline in an attempt to convince the Senate to agree that if
he acted on the SCU they had previously issued, it wouldn’t be an abuse of power. This duality
of the audience changes the meaning of Cicero’s address because there are two meanings to be
had—Cicero has to choose his words carefully in order to convince Catiline to leave and thus
end his troubles, but also to convince the senate that Catiline is a threat worth taking action
against, all at the same time. For example, Cicero says he would leave “si me . . . suspectum,” or
“if [he] were suspected,” instead of saying he would leave if he were guilty of such a crime
(Cicero 51). The idea behind this example begins to explain the occasional contradiction within
Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration, such as how he goes back and forth about wanting Catiline
3
out of the city right away and wanting to wait until he will bring all his followers with him.
Through using rhetorical questions, Cicero addresses the Senate and Catiline simultaneously.
Cicero’s careful word choice is another example of his honed rhetorical skill. The first
sentence of section 17, like the prevalent rhetorical questions, demonstrates the duality in what
Cicero is saying in his oration. Cicero claims he would leave the country if his fellow citizens
were as suspicious of him as they are of Catiline (Cicero 51). By pointing out that in an honorbased culture, suspicion might be sufficient grounds for leaving the country permanently, Cicero
presents a way for Catiline to leave Rome and still claim innocence. This reveals the possibility
that Cicero doubted his own ability to convince the senate to force Catiline out, or perhaps that
Cicero even doubted Catiline’s guilt himself. Cicero then, however, quickly reasserts his opinion
of Catiline’s depravity for the senate’s benefit. Cicero ensures there is no misunderstanding of
his intention to portray Catiline as the enemy by closely associating him with the crimes of
which he speaks—“scelerum tuorum”—immediately after possibly giving Catiline a way out
(Cicero 51). The dualism surrounding this half-concession again shows that Cicero addresses
two audiences at once with his speech. Cicero’s choice of punctuation, such as his use of colons
rather than periods, emphasises that these two ideas are being combined into one. Cicero is
willing to do whatever it takes to get Catiline out of his way, whether it be convincing Catiline
that he would be better off outside of Rome or convincing the senate to do something about
Catiline before it’s too late.
In addition to these rhetorical moves, Cicero uses several carefully selected words and
grammatical constructions to get his point across. Cicero refers to “Servi . . . mei,” followed
closely by “omnes cives tui,” which translates to “My slaves” and “all your citizens” (Cicero 51).
By juxtaposing his slaves with Catiline’s citizens with a carefully placed possessive genitive,
4
Cicero makes it look as if Catiline sees himself as being above the other senators, perhaps to put
them on the defensive. The comparison itself is juxtaposition, and it also forms a chiasm with an
ABBA pattern, since “Servi . . . mei” and “cives tui” frame the alliterative verbs “metuerent” and
“metuunt” (51). All these rhetorical devices work together to emphasize the comparison between
slaves and citizens that Cicero implies, which could help him convince the senators that Catiline
is not a threat to be ignored. Additionally, by using “mehercule,” translated as “by Hercules,”
Cicero further emphasises “Servi,” which the exclamation follows. This emphasis makes the
insinuated comparison between slaves and citizens that follows even more jarring for the
senators, since Cicero has called their attention to individual words (51). Even Cicero’s word
choice is rhetorically sound.
Throughout this section of the oration, Cicero also uses repeated structure several times.
At first he compares himself, his slaves, and his house hypothetically to Catiline, his fellow
citizens, and Rome. He repeats this structure again by comparing Catiline and his parents to
Catiline and his homeland (Cicero 51). These two metaphors in close proximity make for a more
lasting impression as Cicero relates his arguments to bigger ideas. There is also repeated
structure within the Latin: Cicero uses two present contrary-to-fact conditions in a row and he
employs hendiadys twice, one right after the other, with “mentis sensusque” and then “aspectum
praesentiamque” (51). Cicero even uses assonance twice in a row; he follows “odium omnium”
with “debitum, dubitas” (51). Cicero seems to put every rhetorical device he uses within this
section into a pair. This adds emphasis—emphasis which perhaps serves to drive home the point
that Cicero has earned his way to the top of the political food chain rather than had it handed to
him. He has only made it there through his rhetorical skill, so he uses rhetoric often as if to
5
emphasize his own credibility to an audience which, thanks to his status as a novus homo
(Shapiro 141), may find it hard to look up to him as their leader.
This need to establish his own credibility even from the position of consul can also be
seen in Cicero’s use of personification. Cicero compares the country to the parent of all Romans,
first when he claims Catiline is plotting parricide against it, and then directly with the two
nominatives in the statement “te patria, quae communis est parens omnium nostrum,” or “your
homeland, which is the common parent of us all (Cicero 51). In this way, Cicero makes Catiline
look even worse—now he’s not just a degenerate but a rebellious and murderous child—and
simultaneously draws the senators together to fight against the threat Catiline presents. Cicero
seems to speak to all the senators, Catiline included, but most especially himself when he says
Rome is “the parent of us all” (51). Cicero attempts to unite the senators against their one enemy,
but he also makes sure to include himself in the mix. Again, as a novus homo, Cicero needs all
the help he can get before he will be taken seriously by the senators to whom he is speaking, so
by including himself in this simile of a parent and her children, Cicero emphasizes that he is a
deserving member of politics in Rome. He needs this credibility before he can convince the
Senate to do anything to stop Catiline.
Through the use of a single sentence containing tricolon, an isocolon, and polysyndeton
at the end of this section (right after another tricolon, of course), Cicero once again reveals that
he is speaking to two separate audiences. Cicero’s accusation that Catiline “nec iudicium
sequere,” or that he does not follow the law, is like a call to action for the senate, and his claim
that Catiline might not be leaving because he doesn’t sufficiently fear the Republic’s power is
like a warning for Catiline if he won’t leave of his own accord (Cicero 51). Cicero uses tricolon
frequently throughout his oration—it’s one of the easier rhetorical moves to pick up on audially,
6
but it also allows him to say multiple things that may sound similar on the surface but are
different upon closer inspection in the same sentence. Cicero uses this element of tricolon to
pack everything he wants—and needs—to say into a concise oration.
Overall, Cicero’s abundant use of rhetoric not only demonstrates his aptitude as a rhetor
but also, perhaps more importantly, reveals his insecurity about his position of authority, which
is why he is giving this speech in the first place. Cicero later presents himself as the hero, the
orator who can claim, as Edward Clayton of Central Michigan University writes, “that he had
singlehandedly saved the commonwealth” through the effective use of his rhetoric (Clayton 1).
Cicero does use rhetoric to Catiline’s demise quite well, but upon closer inspection, during the
time of his speech, Cicero’s bold character falls apart. He may later be hailed as a hero for
ousting Catiline, but as he delivers his speech, there’s no guarantee that anyone will believe him
at all. Cicero is weaker than he wants to look, and he recognizes that, which is why he gives this
speech in the first place instead of simply killing Catiline. Cicero’s status as a novus homo
combined with his lack of evidence against Catiline can’t be too comforting, and yet Cicero
stands to speak anyway. His overfrequent rhetorical devices, word choice, and running
fatherland simile may reveal Cicero’s knowledge of his impending failure with and exile from
the Senate as a result of killing Catiline’s conspirators, but they certainly don’t make him less
brave.
7
Works Cited
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. In Catilinam 1-4. Loeb Classical Library, pp. 48-51,
www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_ciceroin_catilinam_i_iv/1976/pb_LCL324.49.xml?result=3&rskey=9qJhpb. Accessed 11 Oct.
2016.
Clayton, Edward. “Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
www.iep.utm.edu/cicero. Accessed 11 Oct. 2016.
Shapiro, Susan O. O Tempora! O Mores!: Cicero’s Catilinarian Orations. U of Oklahoma Press,
2005.